Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has reiterated its directions to police officials to refrain from entertaining any civil dispute plea. Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy directed the station house officer (SHO), Karimnagar Rural, and his subordinate officers not to interfere in civil disputes in a writ petition filed by Syed Moin.
The petitioner contended that the respondents were threatening him of dispossession by interfering in his peaceful possession. The property is a 25 per cent undivided share out of the total area of 847.40 sq. yd in Survey No. 758/3 situated at Bommakal village.
The petitioner alleged that Kodityala Mallesha and others obtained building permission fraudulently due to which the police were interfering with his possession. The judge after perusing the material directed the respondent not to interfere in civil disputes and said any action should be done only under the law.
Cops silent despite HC order
In a contrasting matter, Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy was dealing with a case where police would not act against private parties even when there was a court injunction.
The petitioner, Bandanadam Chinamma, complained that the station house officer, Addagudur, had not registered an FIR and had failed to provide police protection for the transplantation of cotton in the land situated at Dharmaram village.
The petitioner complained that the unofficial respondents were interfering with her peaceful possession and had been trespassing into the land despite the court’s restraining order.
The court, while adjourning the matter, directed the petitioners to serve notice to the unofficial respondents and file proof of service by February 11.
HC refuses plea against DRT orders
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court yet again refused to entertain a writ petition against the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) given the alternative remedy available under the statute.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Alok Aradhe was dealing with a writ petition complaining that the DRT had failed to consider the action of Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd in dealing with the Covid instructions and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Centre.
Earlier, the petitioner had moved the DRT complaining that without reference to the parameters of COVID-related circulars and resolution framework, Indiabulls had proceeded to wrongly declare his account as a non-performing asset (NPA).
Reiterating its consistent view, the bench, speaking through the Chief Justice, made it clear that the petitioner could avail of the remedies available under the statute. The bench made clear that the time consumed in pursuing the present writ petition would not be considered for the purposes of limitation under the statute.
