Reasons Must Be Given for Rejection of Deputation: HC

Hyderabad: A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court directed the National Fisheries Development Board and the Department of Fisheries to reconsider the deputation of a finance officer at Hyderabad. The panel comprising Justice S. Nanda and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao also declared the circumstances under which a writ appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order. The panel was dealing with a writ appeal filed by B. Sushma. The appellant would contend that she was appointed to the post of senior executive (finance & administration) on deputation for three years, as per appointment orders dated October 26, 2023, and December 7, 2023 and NFDB abruptly rejected the representation seeking an extension of her deputation and subsequently relieved her from service on April 28, 2025. Counsel for the appellant Srinivas Bobbili argued that the rejection order, issued on April 24, failed to provide any substantive grounds and merely stated that her request was not approved by the competent authority. Earlier, a writ petition was filed before a single judge challenging the rejection, wherein both parties were directed to maintain the status quo until the next date of hearing. However, the appellant challenged that interim order, arguing that the status quo order effectively allowed the impugned orders to take effect, thereby defeating the very purpose of her writ petition. Speaking for the Bench, Justice Nanda ruled that the interlocutory order had the “quality of finality” and significantly impacted the petitioner’s rights. The court found that the rejection of her request for an extension until November 2026 was arbitrary and lacked proper justification, violating principles of natural justice. The panel relying on apex court rulings emphasized that decisions affecting civil rights must provide adequate justification. The panel noted that even interim orders may be appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent if they have a direct adverse effect on a party. Quoting from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, the Bench reiterated that “any order of judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authority should be supported by reasons.” The panel accordingly set aside the status quo order, thereby allowing her deputation extension request to be reconsidered by forwarding it to the competent authority within one week, taking into account her original appointment terms and ensuring a reasoned decision.

HC rejects bail in Rs 25-cr drug case

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation on Tuesday, rejected the bail plea of an accused involved in a high-profile narcotics case involving the illicit manufacture of 132 kg of alprazolam, a psychotropic substance far exceeding the commercial quantity limit of 100 grams under the NDPS Act. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by Vasamsetti Naresh, Accused No. 2. The petitioner along with primary accused filed the criminal appeal challenging an order of Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy which convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh each. Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was absolutely no evidence against the petitioner, nor was anything recovered from him. He pointed out that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses and the witnesses examined are interested witnesses. He further said that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) cannot implicate the petitioner in the present case based on the confession statement of the co-accused. It was also contended that as there was no likelihood of hearing the appeal finally, he may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, DRI contended that during a search conducted on December 12, 2016, the primary accused was present and admitted that he took the manufacturing equipment on lease/agreement and used the equipment available in the factory premises to manufacture alprazolam. Justice Lakshman upheld the stringent Section 37 of the NDPS Act bail conditions, emphasising that no bail could be granted unless the court found "reasonable grounds" to believe the accused was innocent and would not commit any offence while on bail. It was the specific contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is an expert in the manufacture of alprazolam and, with his aid and assistance, the primary accused and others manufactured the aforesaid drug under the guise of the manufacture of dothiepin. The judge, dismissing the bail application, said, “This court must be reasonably satisfied on a prima facie basis that the accused is not guilty of the offence. If the court finds that the evidence against the accused is strong and indicates guilt, it may deny bail. The petitioner has been in jail for 23 months. It is not a ground to grant bail to him. The petitioner failed to make out any ground to grant bail.”