Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has asked the governments of AP and TS and the Centre to explain their stand on establishing Central, state and regional level forensic science laboratories in the two states in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice Shameem Akhter was hearing a PIL by T. Dhangopal Rao, a resident of the city, seeking to declare as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 144, 51 A(h), 14, 19(1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution, the failure of the respondents to establish forensic labs.
The petitioner urged the court to direct the respondents to apprise the court the steps that have been taken to establish the forensic science laboratories in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Thana Singh versus Central Bureau of Narcotics case.
While issuing notices, the bench directed the respondent governments to file counter affidavits before April 11.
Officials fined Rs 20000 for delaying survey
AP Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that the Consumer Protection Act does not contemplate any differentiation between the services rendered by a private person and a government department.
Commission president Justice Noushad Ali has ruled that the authorities, while conducting a survey of a private land or making subdivisions on the application of landowners under the Survey and Boundaries Act 1923, do not discharge any sovereign functions of the state for claiming immunity from the application of consumer laws.
The commission allowed an appeal by one K. Pushpa Leela, a resident of Hyderabad, challenging the dismissal of her application seeking compensation from the revenue authorities of Ungutur mandal of Krishna district for the delay of two years in conducting a survey of her land despite paying the required fee for the survey.
The Krishna District Consumer Forum had dismissed her application on the ground that the survey was completed by the revenue authorities. While awarding Rs 20,000 to the petitioner as compensation, Justice Noushad Ali said, “It is a service rendered by the revenue authorities to the public burdened with duty under the statute. The surveys are not done free of cost nor are they undertaken suo motu for the benefit of the state.”
He noted that the authorities had completed the survey only after the intervention of the joint collector when the applicant complained about the delay.
