High Court Upholds Additional Kazi’s Sacking For illegalities

Hyderabad:Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court reprimanded the actions of the additional kazi of Qile Mohammed Nagar for permitting child marriages and issuing a divorce certificate in clear deviation from established religious norms. The judge held that such transgressions constituted grave misconduct warranting his removal from office. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the additional kazi, Mohd Zaheeruddin. The petitioner challenged the government order which sought to assail his removal on the ground that no proper enquiry was conducted and that the allegations were fabricated at the instance of rival kazis. He denied responsibility for the child marriages and the irregular divorce certificate, contending that he was unfairly targeted. The state produced extensive documentary material, including police reports, FIRs, ACP communications and collector’s reports demonstrating that multiple child marriages were performed, marriages were solemnised outside the petitioner’s jurisdiction, and a divorce certificate was issued during the mandatory ‘iddat’ period. The judge noted that every such act bore the signature of the petitioner, making his attempt to distance himself from the violations legally untenable. Justice Bheemapaka recorded that the petitioner continued appointing and allowing naib kazis to function despite repeated instructions to refrain from delegating powers in view of these irregularities. The judge rejected the contention that “misconduct” lacked definition under the Kazis Act, observing that the petitioner’s conduct was patently violative of both statutory obligations and religious mandates. The judge held that adequate opportunity was afforded through show-cause notices issued in 2023 and 2025, and that the petitioner’s replies were evasive and devoid of explanation. The judge concluded that the decision of the government was a lawful exercise of power under the Kazis Act, free from arbitrariness or mala fides. Finding the removal justified and supported by substantial material, the judge dismissed the writ plea.

Court allows NGO to inspect dog shelters

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea alleging lapses in the handling and welfare of community dogs by the GHMC. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Association for Animal Shelter and Rescue Aid (AASRA), which contended that the municipal authorities failed to follow proper sterilisation, housing and welfare protocols for community animals. The petitioner alleged that sterilised and unsterilised dogs were being kept together, defeating the purpose of the Animal Birth Control programme and contrary to statutory and judicial mandates. Appearing for GHMC, the veterinary officer submitted that the corporation operated six recognised shelters and had so far captured approximately 2,000 community dogs. It was submitted that the municipal corporation was acting in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court and has a cumulative capacity of over 3,000 animals across shelters, including facilities at Mahadevpur and Chudi Bazaar. The officer also stated that funds had been earmarked for expanding the existing infrastructure. Taking note of the submissions and the petitioner organisation’s work in animal welfare, the judge permitted AASRA to inspect any two shelters of its choice, after prior intimation to designated officials. The judge permitted carrying mobile devices for documentation during inspections. The judge also sought further clarifications from GHMC and posted the matter for further hearing.

Cop loses bid to overturn ACB case

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings against a police inspector for alleged possession of disproportionate assets. The petition was filed by Indur Jagadeesh, seeking to quash FIR registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was contended that the FIR was lodged on the basis of the same material that earlier formed the basis of another crime, which was quashed by the High Court in August 2022, and that the present case was therefore an abuse of process. The petitioner contended that a detailed explanation regarding the source of the seized cash and assets was submitted and that the income of his wife, a government teacher, was not considered. The special public prosecutor opposing the plea argued that the present FIR pertained to a distinct offence of disproportionate assets and was based on material different from the earlier crime. It was argued that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily account for possession of ₹34.4 lakh in cash, gold and silver seized from a joint bank locker, and that the explanation based on an unregistered agreement of sale allegedly executed by his father was disputed and required investigation. The judge observed that the allegations in the earlier case and the present FIR were different, and that questions relating to the explanation offered, including the income of the petitioner’s wife and the transaction relied upon, were disputed facts that could not be examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The judge observed that a second FIR was maintainable when based on distinct material and that courts could not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing. Finding that the FIR disclosed a cognisable offence and that no ground was made out to exercise inherent jurisdiction, the judge dismissed the criminal petition.