Don’t take policy decisions, HC directs Hanamkonda housing co-op society
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court injuncted the newly elected managing committee of Ekasila Co-operative Housing Society Limited from taking any major policy decisions.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court injuncted the new managing committee of Ekasila Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda, from taking any major policy decisions. The interim order comes in the light of a challenge to the elections conducted on March 1. The court entertained a writ petition filed by P. Sammaiah, a former president of the said co-operative society. He pointed out that total number of members of the society in 2020 was 21. As elections were not, an in-charge was appointed. S. Lakshmikanth, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the said action of increasing the strength of the co-operative society by the in-charge was without the authority of law as declared by the apex court. The same was appreciated by the High Court in an earlier round of litigation involving the said society. Again, a new in-charge admitted 17 more members. Admission of 26 new members was illegal. The judge pointedly asked the government under what authority the in-charge had included such members. The court granted time to the government and the elected committee to file its response.
Ailing convict denied treatment outside prison
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to extend the period of treatment of a convict outside prison and directed him to surrender before the jail authorities. This refusal came in a writ plea filed by a sexagenarian Thota Rama Murthy Naidu, convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had on an earlier occasion sought specialised treatment for cardiac and neurological disorders at a super-specialty hospital in Patancheru. The court had granted interim relief, allowing him two weeks of treatment under a police escort at the hospital. Thereafter, the interim order permitting the petitioner was extended on several occasions. However, upon review, the judge observed that the petitioner had not yet undergone any surgical procedure, and neither he nor the hospital had clarified about the duration of the treatment that was required. While acknowledging that medical facilities in jail were inadequate, the judge found the uncertainty surrounding the treatment timeline made further extensions impractical. The judge, therefore, declined to extend the petitioner’s stay outside prison indefinitely and directed him to surrender before the jail authorities. The judge further directed the jail hospital board to examine the petitioner and submit a report on his medical condition, stating that any further relief would be considered based on the findings.
Woman entrepreneur facing criminal charges allowed to travel to Doha
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court permitted a woman entrepreneur to travel to Doha pending a criminal petition against her. Lalita Manikantan moved the High Court to quash the criminal case filed against her. The ACB pointed out that she, along with another individual, had joined hands with the sub-registrar and got properties registered contrary to law. Senior counsel Vinod Kumar Deshpande pointed out that she had no role in the purchase of the property in question and had only paid the specified amount. Bala, counsel for the ACB, argued that the allegations were grave in nature. He mentioned that a similar application seeking return of the passport was filed and is pending before the criminal court, and the two applications cannot be pursued simultaneously. The prosecution estimated the loss of revenue to the state at about `1,600 crore. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that illegalities, if any, should at best be attributed to the former sub-registrar. He also undertook to withdraw the applications pending before the criminal court. He stated that the complaint against the petitioner was motivated by business rivals. The judge permitted her to travel by imposing conditions and took the petition to quash the criminal case on file.
Plea seeking service benefits from privatised Air India dismissed
The Telangana High Court ruled that Air India, now a private entity, is not obligated to follow service conditions that applied before its privatisation unless explicitly stated in contractual agreements. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka dismissed a writ petition filed by six senior assistants from the airline’s technical cadre, challenging the denial of service benefits that they claimed were due to them based on past court rulings. The writ plea was filed by K. Krishna Mohan Rao and five others contending that their benefits should continue despite the privatization move. The judge rejecting the argument of petitioner referred to a Supreme Court decision, which emphasised that Air India ceased to be a government entity after the government of India sold its full stake to Talace India Pvt. Ltd on January 27, 2022. The single judge said that the airline no longer falls under the definition of a ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution and is not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which applies only to government bodies or entities performing public duties. The judge ruled that since Air India is now privately owned, it cannot be compelled to maintain service conditions from its government-run era unless explicitly agreed upon. The petition was consequently dismissed.
HC grants conditional bail in financial fraud case
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted bail to a private employee accused in a financial fraud case linked to Janani Repo Projects Private Limited. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by one Karnati Srinivasulu, accused of committing cheating, among other offences, under IPC. According to the prosecution, the accused, along with others, collected money from investors but failed to either register the plots or return the funds, leading to the registration of the criminal case. The counsel for the petitioner contended that he was merely an employee of the company and had no involvement in the firm’s financial transactions. The counsel also pointed out that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since February and the material part of the investigation was already completed. The additional public prosecutor opposed the bail plea, arguing that many victims had invested large amounts, and the investigation was ongoing. The judge observed that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner personally deposited the investors’ money into his account and enlarged the petitioner on a conditional bail.