HYDERABAD: Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court strongly criticised Rajanna Sircilla district collector Sandeep Kumar Jha for overstepping his authority by orchestrating a criminal complaint against Vanapatla Kavita, a land acquisition victim from Anupuraram village. The collector initially failed to appear before the court, despite explicit instructions to do so. Then Justice Anil Kumar warned the additional advocate general that the court would issue a warrant if the collector did not appear by 2.15 pm. The court questioned whether the collector was prepared to face jail for contempt, prompting Jha to issue an unconditional apology. Earlier, a writ plea was filed by Kavita challenging displacement due to the Mid Manair project. Despite a High Court order directing authorities to include her in the rehabilitation scheme, her name was omitted from the beneficiary list. When she pursued contempt proceedings over the non-compliance, the collector allegedly retaliated by instructing officials to initiate civil and criminal cases against her. Following his directions, the Vemulawada tahsildar filed a complaint, leading to a criminal case against her for alleged misrepresentation before the court. During the hearing, Justice Anil Kumar reprimanded the collector for his conduct, questioning how he could unilaterally decide that the court’s order was erroneous. The judge also inquired why any alleged misrepresentation by Kavita had not been raised during earlier proceedings. The hearing, which lasted nearly two hours, concluded with the Collector admitting his mistake and offering an unconditional apology. The court reserved its verdict on the matter.HC takes up reversal of disciplinary action against CISF head constableA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ appeal filed by the Union government against an order that overturned disciplinary action against K. Murugesan, a CISF head constable. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, is dealing with a writ appeal pertaining to K. Murugesan, who was previously penalised for allegedly collecting Rs 1,000 from a proclainer operator and a truck driver while on duty in November 2010. According to the appellant, Murugesan was accused of demanding and accepting money from the drivers while posted at a CISF checkpoint. Following an internal inquiry, he was found guilty and was imposed disciplinary action, reducing his pay by four stages for two years and postponing his future increments. His appeals and revision petitions to higher authorities were repeatedly denied, leading him to challenge the decision in the High Court. Murugesan argued that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and also pointed out that the inquiry officer had failed to examine key witnesses, including the complainant, depriving him of the opportunity to cross examine them. Additionally, a crucial witness, the jeep driver, who was with Murugesan at the time of the alleged incident, provided a statement in his favour, which was ignored during the proceedings. The single judge found serious lapses in the disciplinary process and observed that the inquiry officer relied on assumptions rather than concrete evidence, leading to an unfair conclusion against Murugesan. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judge reaffirmed that disciplinary actions must be based on clear, reliable, and legally admissible evidence. The failure to allow cross-examination and the omission of a favourable witness’s testimony were deemed violations of due process, leading to the disciplinary orders being set aside. Challenging this verdict, the union government filed a writ appeal, arguing that the disciplinary authority had acted within its powers and that the inquiry findings should not have been disregarded. The panel granted the Union government a week’s time for the submission of inquiry proceedings and witness statements.HC takes up contempt case against directorate of animal husbandryA two-judge panel of Telangana High Court will continue to hear a contempt case against the directorate of animal husbandry, Hyderabad alleging failure to establish animal birth control centres in the state. The panel, comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, is dealing with a contempt case filed by an advocate P. Sree Ramya, who alleged that the respondent authorities are guilty of wilful disobedience of orders passed by the court earlier in an earlier PIL. Earlier a PIL was filed challenging the actions of state government and the animal husbandry department’s approach in managing stray dogs. In the PIL, the petitioner alleged that instead of implementing the program as per the animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001, the authorities were resorting to culling. The High Court ruled that the state animal welfare board must ensure strict compliance with these rules, including the establishment of birth control centres in every municipality. During the hearing of the contempt case, the government pleader for fisheries and animal husbandry informed the court that in compliance with the directions of the court in PIL, 112 ABC centres had been set up in accordance with the 2001 rules. However, the petitioner contended that only 42 centres were established. The petitioner sought time to verify the number of centres that have been established and whether they were working. In view of the same, the panel posted the matter after four weeks.HC quashes criminal proceedings against advocateJustice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate, involved in a 2020 protest by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) near the Telangana State Legislative Assembly. The judge held that peaceful protests are protected under the Constitution and that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of legal process. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by K. Mahesh, accused of being part of an unlawful assembly during a demonstration in March 2020. The protest, held at Osmania Gate when an assembly session was underway, involved 20-30 ABVP activists blocking traffic and attempting to enter the premises. When police tried to disperse them, clashes ensued, leading to injuries on both sides. The petitioner was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including assault on a public servant, causing hurt to deter a public servant, and unlawful assembly. However, his counsel argued that there was no specific evidence linking him to any illegal activity and that his fundamental right to peaceful protest under Article 19(1) of the Constitution was being suppressed. The judge ruled that there was no evidence proving the petitioner had used offensive language, obstructed traffic, or caused public nuisance and thereby allowed the criminal petition.
Source link
