Explanation sought for PIL on quota

Explanation sought for PIL on quota

Hyderabad, Dec. 11: A larger bench of the High Court on asked T. Muralidhar Rao, who filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Muslim reservation Bill why he was not able to submit his objection before the Backward Classes Commission and why he straight away filed a PIL in the High Court.
The bench also sought to know the social service done by the petitioner as he claimed that he was a social worker and had done a lot of social service. Senior counsel K. Ramakrishna Reddy submitted before the bench headed by Justice T. Meena Kumari and comprised of Justice Prakash Rao, Justice D.S.R. Verma, Justice A. Gopal Reddy and Justice V. Eswaraiah that the Backward Classes Commission did not do any exercise to identify the backwardness among certain occupational groups in Muslims.
Affidavit ordered on funds spent in ‘05
The court asked the advocate general to submit an affidavit on the funds spent in 2005-06 under the Special Component Plan for development of SCs and STs, while dealing with a PIL filed by one T. John Prakash to divert funds for Special Component Plan.
Deadline given to GHMC officials
The court warned the officials of GHMC of Malkajigiri division that if they fail to explain why they did not initiate action on illegal constructions in the area by Wednesday, it will issue contempt proceedings against them. A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan pulled up the officials for failing to submit an undertaking that they would demolish illegal buildings and constructions in the division. Standing counsel submitted that 313 construction identified as illegal.