Legal Briefs | Telangana HC calls for report in toddy adulteration case
HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed the government to file autopsy reports in a PIL with regard to an incident at Mahbubnagar where three people died after consuming adulterated toddy, and another individual was reported critically ill. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice G. Radha Rani, entertained a PIL based on a letter from social worker Sri Chintakunta Anil Kumar. The letter, which was forwarded along with a news report on April 13, 2023, claimed that three people had died after consuming adulterated toddy, and a fourth was critically ill. According to the report, approximately 42 people fell ill after drinking the adulterated toddy. While authorities initially registered cases in response to the incident, the minister, who visited the victims in the hospital, disputed claims that adulterated toddy was the cause of death. He stated that doctors had ruled out this possibility, and samples of the toddy were sent for testing. The minister assured that if adulteration was confirmed, appropriate action would be taken against the responsible officials and the toddy shop owners. However, the situation has been marred by allegations that the family members of the deceased were warned that they would be denied access to welfare schemes like Rythu Bhima, a farmers' insurance programme, if they pursued legal action. Additionally, it was reported that the toddy shop management allegedly struck financial settlements with some of the hospitalised victims in exchange for silence. In response, the petitioners requested the High Court to compel the authorities to investigate the deaths and take action against the negligent officials and shop owners. They also urged the court to take steps to curb the sale of adulterated toddy in the district to prevent further fatalities. Counsel for the respondents countered these claims, arguing that autopsy reports indicated that no traces of toddy were found in the bodies of the deceased, thus suggesting that adulterated toddy was not the cause of death. The panel directed the counsel to file the autopsy reports and posted the matter to February 3.
Pocso convict’s case on age certificate
The Telangana High Court will continue hearing a writ plea against alleged issuance of a false birth certificate by the headmistress of a local school, which led to an individual’s imprisonment for two months. Justice T. Vinod Kumar took on file a writ plea filed by Thanniru Shekhar T. Rajashekhar claiming that the headmistress wrongfully issued a birth certificate stating that his wife, Chine Sirisha’s date of birth was shown as July 12, 2003, instead of the correct date, July 12, 1999. The alleged falsification, he contended, was done under the influence of certain unofficial respondents. As a consequence of the alleged falsification, a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was filed against the petitioner, leading to imprisonment for two months. The case is being tried before the Special Judge for the trial of Pocso Act cases-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner contended that wrongful issuance of the certificate had caused irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner. The petitioner also sought a directive from the court to order the commissioner, Board of Secondary Education, Nampally, to rectify his wife’s date of birth based on municipal records. Additionally, he urged the court to cancel recognition of Dilsukhnagar High School and initiate punitive action against the headmistress. During the hearing, the government pleader for school education informed the judge that a response has been filed in the matter. It was noted that none of the unofficial respondents appeared before the judge during the proceedings. The judge listed the matter for further hearing in two weeks and granted time for the submission of additional replies
MLA disqualification case in March
The PIL panel of the Telangana High Court informed the party-in-person K.A. Paul that the writ plea on disqualification of an MLA must await a detailed final hearing. Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice G. Radha Rani were gearing a PIL filed by Paul, who pointed out that any delay in the hearing of the matter would constitute a fait accompli and even the term of the legislature would expire. He filed the PIL seeking disqualification of MLAs from their position under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1951. He sought to declare the act of contesting elections under a different party’s banner as a violation of the Tenth Schedule and the Election Commission of India to ensure strict compliance with anti-defection laws. With the pleading in the matter in place, the panel opined that the matter requires final hearing and posted the matter to March.
Writ against hookah parlour
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the inaction of police in closing a hookah parlour being run on Durgam Cheruvu road, Madhapur. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Mohd Aijaz Khan, alleging that Madhapur station house officer was not considering his representation for closure of ‘Forget me not’ cafe, being run by the unofficial respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that when he went to the police station and requested for the closure of the hookah parlour, he was abused in filthy language by the officer, who, the petitioner alleged was acting in collusion with the hookah parlour management. The petitioner also highlighted that the hookah parlour is being run in a residential area. While hearing the matter, the judge orally observed that running of hookah parlour causes nuisance because of smoking, coming and going of customers and parking issues. The judge also orally observed that several states like Maharashtra and Karnataka have already passed a bill banning hookah and expressed concern regarding the status of the ban on the same in Telangana. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge directed the additional government pleader to get instructions and posted the matter for further adjudication.
