Top

Notice to director of prosecutions in contempt case

Hyderabad: Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the director of prosecutions holding full additional charge for the state and others in a contempt case pertaining to delegation of powers to a junior officer. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by P. Manjula Devi alleging wilful disobedience of the orders passed by the judge in an earlier writ plea.

The petitioner, the most senior officer, working as additional public prosecutor (grade I)/deputy director of prosecution before the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, LB Nagar filed the writ plea. The petitioner contended that administrative powers were delegated to the APP (grade-I)/deputy director of prosecution declaring them as unit officers at the district-level as per GO dated September 24, 2013.

As per the GO, since the petitioner as the senior-most officer in the unit was deemed as the unit officer and the drawing and disbursing officer in Rangareddy district. The petitioner alleged that the respondent vide impugned proceedings delegated the powers to the unofficial respondent, who is junior to the petitioner and is the most junior officer in the district.

The judge in the earlier plea passed an interim order suspending the impugned proceedings, insofar as conferring the powers of drawing and disbursing officer to unofficial respondent was concerned. The petitioner alleged that despite the interim suspension, the respondents failed to implement the orders passed by the judge and thus guilty of contempt. The matter is posted for further adjudication.

Approach after all appeals: HC

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea reiterating that the remedy of appeal needed to be exhausted first, before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Gopu Srinivasa, who challenged the freezing orders issued by the inspector of police, Rajendranagar, which was confirmed by the competent authority under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) that froze the petitioner’s assets on suspicion of involvement in narcotics-related activities.

The petitioner argued that the original freezing order was set aside by the metropolitan sessions judge of RR district. Despite this, authorities issued fresh orders freezing the assets, which the petitioner claimed were illegal, violated principles of natural justice, and infringed rights under the Constitution. The petitioner sought a declaration that the freezing orders were null and void and requested de-freezing of his properties.

The judge, however, held that the petitioner should first exhaust the appellate remedy provided under Section 68-O of the NDPS Act. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998), the judge, while dismissing the writ plea, directed the petitioner to approach the appellant authority under the NDPS Act.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle )
Next Story