By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 29: Citizens can soon get redressal of their legal grievances at the click of a mouse.The Centre has mooted what it calls E-courts enabling citizens to file complaints and petitions from their comfy of their homes.
After an successful attempt of introducing electronic filing system in the SupremeCourt , the apex court asked the Chief Justices of the High Courts across the country to insists the state government to set up paperless courts onexperimental basis in the high courts.
According sources in the AP High Court the Cheif Justice AR Dave isexpected to have a meeting with the Chief Minister Dr Y S RajasekharReddy in next month.
Sources told this correspondent that the Chief Justice will discuss about theE -Courts apart from the construction new building for the High Court andbudgetary allocations for the High Court during the meeting.
The ensuing E-filing process through which any advocate-on-record orpetitioner-in-person can file a case in the High Court through the Internet,from any where through the web site of the court.At present the Supreme Court collecting the court fee and printing charges at Rs1.50
a page.
The petitioner can be paid through any visa/master creditor debit card. No additional court fee or processing fee will have to be paid for e-filing.The E-Court will have facility of multimedia presentation facility and ready for loading of dictation software apart from E-filing. It can enable remote arguing as and when video conferencing is madeavailable.
The petitioner-in-person will, however, have to submit proof of his or heridentity such as ration card or PAN card or driving licence card by scanning the document.The petitioner and advocates can file their counters, rejoinder, fresh applications, caveat and other additional documents through the web siteand can be modified before the matter submitted to the court.
Every advocate will be given a password by the Registry. It is possiblefor him to change the password by accessing the web site. A unique reference number to be given to every user for each case.
According to the employees of the High Court the registry staff no longer needs huge storage spaces for filing the case documents.
The documents are filed securely in an electronic format.They said that pro-active alerts using the email on case status kept the users well informed in advance to take necessary actions.
The employees felt after the introducing of the E -filing that they would be relived from the mundane tasks of booking a case, going through document hard-copies for defect discovery .
However the Center has already provided computers and laptops to the rsidences and Chambers of the Justices of the AP High Court. All the court masters and senior officers, apart from typists were provided with Computers.
The Center has prepared this Mission Mode Project of E-Courts based on the National Policy and Action Plan of the E-Committee. The first phase of the scheme is to be completed by February 2009 at all High Courts.
After the introducing of the E-Courts the High Court will establish omputer Kiosks at the secretariat ,collectorates where even general public and the government departments can have access and also at major railway stations and bus stations to provide more accessibility tothe justice to a common citizen.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
High Court fumes at Ayush boss
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,March29:The AP High Court on Friday expressed anguish over the Ayush commissioner, Dr Vijay Kumar, for providing false information in the court. The court asked the Advocate-General to frame appropriate petition against the officer, who it said, made deliberate attempt to furnish false information to it.
A division bench comprising Justice Meena Kumari and Justice G Chandraiah,while dealing with a petitionfiled by Dr TK Srinivasulu challenging the policy adopted by the Medicaland Health department for thepromotions of professor, pulled the commissioner for furnishing falseinformation to the court.
The bench was of the view that the officer had forged the records andattempted to abuse the process ofthe court and tried to interfere in the administration of justice.It may be mentioned that on earlier occasion the court asked thegovernment pleader for services, MrShivaji, to furnish the details of vacancies of professors in the department.After obtaining the information Mr Shivaji told the court that there wereno vacancies in teaching side and ifthe petitioner opted for a non teaching post he will be considered for thepromotion.
Based on the information the petitioner opted for the non teaching postand at the same time another twoprofessors also opted for the non teaching post. The departmentalpromotion committee subsequentlydenied the promotion to the petitioner.Dr Srinvasulu had suspicion on the episode and applied through RTI Act toget information of vacanciesavailable as on August 28, 2007. The information commissioner furnishedthat 26 posts of professors arevacant on the date. The petitioner informed the same to the court.The court felt that a special bench had to be constituted to deal with thecase and summoned thecommissioner to appear before it. He appeared on Friday.
Justice Meena Kumari asked, "why you have given such false information tothe court".Dr Vijay Kumar said he never said there were no vacancies of professors.Soon after the reply of theofficer the counsel for the services Mr Shivaji was also shocked.He told the court that after a telephonic conversation with the officer heinformed the court about thevacancy position.Justice Meena Kumari assured the counsel that "we will protect you. Weknow that how can you say onyour own unless and until the officer told you."
The court directed that the Chief Secretary allot the files relating tothe case to some other officer otherthan Dr Vijay Kumar.The court asked advocates Dr K Lakshmi Narasimham and Kailash Reddy toassist the court in the caseand directed Dr Vijay Kumar that he appear again on Thursday before thebench.
Hyderabad,March29:The AP High Court on Friday expressed anguish over the Ayush commissioner, Dr Vijay Kumar, for providing false information in the court. The court asked the Advocate-General to frame appropriate petition against the officer, who it said, made deliberate attempt to furnish false information to it.
A division bench comprising Justice Meena Kumari and Justice G Chandraiah,while dealing with a petitionfiled by Dr TK Srinivasulu challenging the policy adopted by the Medicaland Health department for thepromotions of professor, pulled the commissioner for furnishing falseinformation to the court.
The bench was of the view that the officer had forged the records andattempted to abuse the process ofthe court and tried to interfere in the administration of justice.It may be mentioned that on earlier occasion the court asked thegovernment pleader for services, MrShivaji, to furnish the details of vacancies of professors in the department.After obtaining the information Mr Shivaji told the court that there wereno vacancies in teaching side and ifthe petitioner opted for a non teaching post he will be considered for thepromotion.
Based on the information the petitioner opted for the non teaching postand at the same time another twoprofessors also opted for the non teaching post. The departmentalpromotion committee subsequentlydenied the promotion to the petitioner.Dr Srinvasulu had suspicion on the episode and applied through RTI Act toget information of vacanciesavailable as on August 28, 2007. The information commissioner furnishedthat 26 posts of professors arevacant on the date. The petitioner informed the same to the court.The court felt that a special bench had to be constituted to deal with thecase and summoned thecommissioner to appear before it. He appeared on Friday.
Justice Meena Kumari asked, "why you have given such false information tothe court".Dr Vijay Kumar said he never said there were no vacancies of professors.Soon after the reply of theofficer the counsel for the services Mr Shivaji was also shocked.He told the court that after a telephonic conversation with the officer heinformed the court about thevacancy position.Justice Meena Kumari assured the counsel that "we will protect you. Weknow that how can you say onyour own unless and until the officer told you."
The court directed that the Chief Secretary allot the files relating tothe case to some other officer otherthan Dr Vijay Kumar.The court asked advocates Dr K Lakshmi Narasimham and Kailash Reddy toassist the court in the caseand directed Dr Vijay Kumar that he appear again on Thursday before thebench.
Proceedings on Manikonda land stayed by High Cour
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 28: The AP High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings of the AP Wakf Tribunal on a gazette notification that declared 1,600 acres in Manikonda village in Ranga Reddy as wakf property.
The State government and the AP Industrial Infrastructure Corporation have challenged the gazette notification issued by the Wakf board on April 6, 2006. The board declared that 1,600 acres in Manikonda village belonged to Dargah Hussain Shah Vali.
The government had allotted lands to software giants like Wipro, Infosys, Polaris and Emmar Properties. The Lanco Technology Hills Park limited purchased 100 acres from APIIC through a public auction.The Lanco also challenged the notification.
Advocate General C.V. Mohan Reddy, while arguing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice R. Subhash Reddy said the notification was mere baseless and depended on the Muntakhab (a record of properties belonging to Muslim religious institutions).
Hyderabad, March 28: The AP High Court on Friday stayed all further proceedings of the AP Wakf Tribunal on a gazette notification that declared 1,600 acres in Manikonda village in Ranga Reddy as wakf property.
The State government and the AP Industrial Infrastructure Corporation have challenged the gazette notification issued by the Wakf board on April 6, 2006. The board declared that 1,600 acres in Manikonda village belonged to Dargah Hussain Shah Vali.
The government had allotted lands to software giants like Wipro, Infosys, Polaris and Emmar Properties. The Lanco Technology Hills Park limited purchased 100 acres from APIIC through a public auction.The Lanco also challenged the notification.
Advocate General C.V. Mohan Reddy, while arguing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice R. Subhash Reddy said the notification was mere baseless and depended on the Muntakhab (a record of properties belonging to Muslim religious institutions).
The Ag informed the court that some of the devotees of the Dargha filedpetitions in theWakf Tribunal based on the notification and the Tribunal is conductingproceedings onthem. He alleged that some of the land records were also tampered to showthat the landbelonging to the Dargha.Mr. SM. Subhani counsel for the Wakf Board argued that it was asurprising step takenby the State against the Wakf institution and the Wakf Board. Hesubmitted that, in theMuntakhab of the Wakf published in the gazette on February 9,1989 whichdid notcontain the entire area of the land held by the wakf , therefore, thesame has beencorrected by the Board by issuing Errata and issued in April 2006.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
10 more ‘corrupt’ IAS officers named
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 25: The state government on Tuesday submitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court names of 10 IAS officers against whom the Anti-Corruption Bureau had recommended action. Mr K.G. Krishna Murthy, counsel for general administration, handed over the list to Justice N.V. Ramana. Earlier, the government had submitted a list containing the names of six IAS officers. The list was submitted on the basis of a directive issued by the HC which is hearing a petition by senior bureaucrat, Mr Shafiquzzaman.
However, the counsel for the petitioner, Mr P.V. Krishnaiah, said the government did not provide the details of the cases and charges against the IAS officers when the HC sought his reaction to the list. After submitting the fresh list, Mr Krishna Murthy said that the government had dropped action against the officers after initiating disciplinary proceedings against them.
The IAS officers in the list include the former tribal welfare commissioner, Mr Vinod Kumar Agrawal, the former settlement officer, Mr G. Narendranath, the former principal secretary (health), Mr S. Bhale Rao, the former commissioner of labour, Mr R.S. Goel, and the former managing director of the AP State Trading Corporation, Mr Priyadarshi Das.
Also in the list were the former director of employment and training, Mr B. Narasaiah, the former secretary of Board of Intermediate Education, Mr B Krupanandam, the former RDO of Tenali, Mr D. Varaprasad, and the former secretary of the AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions’ Society, Mr D.R. Garg, and the former additional commissioner of GHMC, Mr G.S.G. Ayyangar.
Mr Krishna Murthy told the court that the government issued show-cause notice to all the officers except Mr Krupanandam. He added that the government dropped action against them after perusing their replies, which it found to be satisfactory. “Is this the final list?” asked Justice Ramana and Mr Murthy replied in the affirmative. The judge then said he would close the case after seeking the reaction of the petitioner’s counsel.
Earlier the government submitted a list containing six names including that of the former managing director of AP Foods, Mr Sunil Khatri, the former commissioner of land administration, Mr B. Danam, former RDOs of Guntur, Mr C. Uma Malleswara Rao and Dr C. Satyanarayana, the former vice-chairman and managing director of the AP Housing Board, Mr A. Rama Lakshman and the former RDO of Tenali, Mr M.V. Satyanarayana. The HC had directed on March 7 that the government furnish the names of the IAS officers to the court within two weeks.
Hyderabad, March 25: The state government on Tuesday submitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court names of 10 IAS officers against whom the Anti-Corruption Bureau had recommended action. Mr K.G. Krishna Murthy, counsel for general administration, handed over the list to Justice N.V. Ramana. Earlier, the government had submitted a list containing the names of six IAS officers. The list was submitted on the basis of a directive issued by the HC which is hearing a petition by senior bureaucrat, Mr Shafiquzzaman.
However, the counsel for the petitioner, Mr P.V. Krishnaiah, said the government did not provide the details of the cases and charges against the IAS officers when the HC sought his reaction to the list. After submitting the fresh list, Mr Krishna Murthy said that the government had dropped action against the officers after initiating disciplinary proceedings against them.
The IAS officers in the list include the former tribal welfare commissioner, Mr Vinod Kumar Agrawal, the former settlement officer, Mr G. Narendranath, the former principal secretary (health), Mr S. Bhale Rao, the former commissioner of labour, Mr R.S. Goel, and the former managing director of the AP State Trading Corporation, Mr Priyadarshi Das.
Also in the list were the former director of employment and training, Mr B. Narasaiah, the former secretary of Board of Intermediate Education, Mr B Krupanandam, the former RDO of Tenali, Mr D. Varaprasad, and the former secretary of the AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions’ Society, Mr D.R. Garg, and the former additional commissioner of GHMC, Mr G.S.G. Ayyangar.
Mr Krishna Murthy told the court that the government issued show-cause notice to all the officers except Mr Krupanandam. He added that the government dropped action against them after perusing their replies, which it found to be satisfactory. “Is this the final list?” asked Justice Ramana and Mr Murthy replied in the affirmative. The judge then said he would close the case after seeking the reaction of the petitioner’s counsel.
Earlier the government submitted a list containing six names including that of the former managing director of AP Foods, Mr Sunil Khatri, the former commissioner of land administration, Mr B. Danam, former RDOs of Guntur, Mr C. Uma Malleswara Rao and Dr C. Satyanarayana, the former vice-chairman and managing director of the AP Housing Board, Mr A. Rama Lakshman and the former RDO of Tenali, Mr M.V. Satyanarayana. The HC had directed on March 7 that the government furnish the names of the IAS officers to the court within two weeks.
More litigants in India than US, Canada
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 22: Two out of every 100 people in India are litigants. According to statistics compiled by the Law Commission, one person out of 55 generates a case every year. Around 20 million new cases are filed every year. Despite so many cases being filed in the country, India ranks the lowest when it comes to per capita legal cases. And there are not enough judges to deal with the cases being filed.
In its report, the commission says that delays in disposal of cases and the increasing backlog can be ascribed to the paucity of judges. The commission points out that India has the lowest number of judges among the major democracies of the world. Judge-population ratio in India is 10.05 judges per million people as against 50.09 in the United Kingdom, 57.07 in Australia, 75.02 in Canada and 107 in the United States.
No wonder then that 1.56 crore cases have been pending in various courts in the country. The number of cases pending in High Courts amount to 48 lakh and in the Supreme Court it has touched 46,000. About two decades ago, the commission had recommended a five-fold increase in the strength of the judiciary to 50 judges per million people. The aim was to achieve a ratio of 107 judges per million people by 2000. But neither the commission’s recommendations nor the repeated reminders of successive Chief Justices of the SC could bring this to fruition.
Taking a serious view of this, the SC has now directed that there should be at least 10 per cent increase in the number of judges every year to clear the mounting backlog of cases. The commission estimates that Rs 30,000 crore is needed to increase the number of courts in the country. There are about 13,000 courts in all the states put together and the commission wants to increase this to 60,000.
Hyderabad, March 22: Two out of every 100 people in India are litigants. According to statistics compiled by the Law Commission, one person out of 55 generates a case every year. Around 20 million new cases are filed every year. Despite so many cases being filed in the country, India ranks the lowest when it comes to per capita legal cases. And there are not enough judges to deal with the cases being filed.
In its report, the commission says that delays in disposal of cases and the increasing backlog can be ascribed to the paucity of judges. The commission points out that India has the lowest number of judges among the major democracies of the world. Judge-population ratio in India is 10.05 judges per million people as against 50.09 in the United Kingdom, 57.07 in Australia, 75.02 in Canada and 107 in the United States.
No wonder then that 1.56 crore cases have been pending in various courts in the country. The number of cases pending in High Courts amount to 48 lakh and in the Supreme Court it has touched 46,000. About two decades ago, the commission had recommended a five-fold increase in the strength of the judiciary to 50 judges per million people. The aim was to achieve a ratio of 107 judges per million people by 2000. But neither the commission’s recommendations nor the repeated reminders of successive Chief Justices of the SC could bring this to fruition.
Taking a serious view of this, the SC has now directed that there should be at least 10 per cent increase in the number of judges every year to clear the mounting backlog of cases. The commission estimates that Rs 30,000 crore is needed to increase the number of courts in the country. There are about 13,000 courts in all the states put together and the commission wants to increase this to 60,000.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Court dismisses plea by Varavara Rao
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 19 : A division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R, Dave and Justice R. Subhash Reddy of the AP High Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed by revolutionary writer P. Varavara Rao with regard to Tuesday’s encounter in Chhattisgarh.
Mr Varavara Rao had moved a lunch motion in the court and urged that the court direct the police to preserve the bodies of the Maoists killed in an encounter in Chhattisgarh.
While dealing with the petition, the Chief Justice observed that the court cannot grant any interim direction on the petition, since the incident took place in Chhattisgarh, it was out of the jurisdiction of the court.
Mr V Raghunath, counsel for the petitioner told the court that on earlier occasions also, the Advocate General had assured for shifting of bodies from the place of encounter to their native villages without the interference of police for conduct of funeral.
He stressed that the court make an observation that police should allow the families of deceased to perform the last rites in their respective villages.
Justice R Subhash Reddy asked Mr Raghunath, what was his apprehension. He replied that police may not allow the families to take the bodies and not even allow identification process.
The petitioner asked the court to direct the police to register a case under Section 302 of IPC against the police officers who participated in the encounter.
Hyderabad, March 19 : A division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R, Dave and Justice R. Subhash Reddy of the AP High Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed by revolutionary writer P. Varavara Rao with regard to Tuesday’s encounter in Chhattisgarh.
Mr Varavara Rao had moved a lunch motion in the court and urged that the court direct the police to preserve the bodies of the Maoists killed in an encounter in Chhattisgarh.
While dealing with the petition, the Chief Justice observed that the court cannot grant any interim direction on the petition, since the incident took place in Chhattisgarh, it was out of the jurisdiction of the court.
Mr V Raghunath, counsel for the petitioner told the court that on earlier occasions also, the Advocate General had assured for shifting of bodies from the place of encounter to their native villages without the interference of police for conduct of funeral.
He stressed that the court make an observation that police should allow the families of deceased to perform the last rites in their respective villages.
Justice R Subhash Reddy asked Mr Raghunath, what was his apprehension. He replied that police may not allow the families to take the bodies and not even allow identification process.
The petitioner asked the court to direct the police to register a case under Section 302 of IPC against the police officers who participated in the encounter.
IAS officers not superior than the court : issues NBW to ex-Vizag collector
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 19: The Andhra Pardesh High Court on Wednesday observed that the IAS officers are not superior than the court. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan issued non bailable warrant against Mr Anilkumar Singhal, former collector of Visakhapatnam district for not appearing before the court despite notices issued to appear.
Earlier, the court issued notices to R. Sudhakar, chief executive officer, Society for Training and Employment Promotion, A.K. Singhal, former collector and G. Anantha Ramu, chairman and managing director, AP Society for Training and Employment Promotion, to appear before it in a contempt petition filed by R. Surya Rao, loans inspector of the Society for Training and Employment Promotion.
Mr Ramanuja Chari, counsel for the respondents submitted to the court that the earlier orders of the court were complied by the respondents and the arrears paid to the petitioner. He also said that there was a clerical error in the calculation of arrears and for that a senior officer need not appear before the court.
Mr Chari also cited recent directions of the Supreme Court with regard to frequently summoning of senior officers to the court for simple reasons. The judge did not agree with Mr Chari’s contention and said that whenever the court felt there was a need of the presence of a senior officer, he or she should be present before the court and answer the queries.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
NGO seeks review of Polavaram project judgment
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 17: A petition was filed in the AP High Court on Monday seeking review of the judgement of a division bench of this court in case of construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) multi purpose project.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice GS Singhvi and Justice R Subhash Reddy pronounced its verdict on July 20, 2007 saying that "the State government shall not displace the people from 276 villages, which will be submerged in Polavaram dam and those living in the Scheduled Areas, without giving complete effect to the rehabilitation policy. This would necessarily mean that before the dam is filled and the villages are submerged, the affected persons will have to be rehabilitated, re-settled and compensation paid in accordance with the policy".
The bench also said "wherever the government acquires land, it shall take possession only after payment of compensation to the landholder in accordance with Section 17 (3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894".
Samata, a non-government organisation, filed a review petition stating that the affected farmers belonged to Scheduled Tribes and they should be rehabilitated in the Scheduled area only. The petitioner contended that the value of land in the area owned by a tribal cannot be measured in terms of money.
The petitioner informed the court that earlier a separate petition was filed challenging the decision of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs in clearing the Relief and Rehabilitation plans.
The petitioner said "unless the earlier order of the division bench is reviewed and the issues therein are adjudicated and the tribals will be put to irreparable loss".
The petitioner urged the court to restrain the government from taking steps to shift the tribals from the scheduled area to non-scheduled area in the name of resettlement to construct Polavaram project.
Hyderabad, March 17: A petition was filed in the AP High Court on Monday seeking review of the judgement of a division bench of this court in case of construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) multi purpose project.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice GS Singhvi and Justice R Subhash Reddy pronounced its verdict on July 20, 2007 saying that "the State government shall not displace the people from 276 villages, which will be submerged in Polavaram dam and those living in the Scheduled Areas, without giving complete effect to the rehabilitation policy. This would necessarily mean that before the dam is filled and the villages are submerged, the affected persons will have to be rehabilitated, re-settled and compensation paid in accordance with the policy".
The bench also said "wherever the government acquires land, it shall take possession only after payment of compensation to the landholder in accordance with Section 17 (3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894".
Samata, a non-government organisation, filed a review petition stating that the affected farmers belonged to Scheduled Tribes and they should be rehabilitated in the Scheduled area only. The petitioner contended that the value of land in the area owned by a tribal cannot be measured in terms of money.
The petitioner informed the court that earlier a separate petition was filed challenging the decision of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs in clearing the Relief and Rehabilitation plans.
The petitioner said "unless the earlier order of the division bench is reviewed and the issues therein are adjudicated and the tribals will be put to irreparable loss".
The petitioner urged the court to restrain the government from taking steps to shift the tribals from the scheduled area to non-scheduled area in the name of resettlement to construct Polavaram project.
Election Commission challenged acquital of film star Mohan Babu
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 17: The Election Commission of India has filed a criminal appeal challenging the orders of the Srikakulam session judge acquitting the film star M. Mohan Babu, ex-MP, from a case of obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty.
The session court passed an order on December 21, 2001 acquitting Mr Mohan Babu from the case registered against him under Section 353 of the IPC on the complaint of election observer Mr K Benargee during Lok Sabha election in 1996 at Amudalavalsa police station.
The judicial first class magistrate of Amudalavalsa sentenced Mr Mohan Babu to undergo imprisonment of seven days. Later Mr Mohan Babu challenged the lower court's orders and the session court acquitted him from the charge.
Hyderabad, March 17: The Election Commission of India has filed a criminal appeal challenging the orders of the Srikakulam session judge acquitting the film star M. Mohan Babu, ex-MP, from a case of obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty.
The session court passed an order on December 21, 2001 acquitting Mr Mohan Babu from the case registered against him under Section 353 of the IPC on the complaint of election observer Mr K Benargee during Lok Sabha election in 1996 at Amudalavalsa police station.
The judicial first class magistrate of Amudalavalsa sentenced Mr Mohan Babu to undergo imprisonment of seven days. Later Mr Mohan Babu challenged the lower court's orders and the session court acquitted him from the charge.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
HC admits PIL on old airport; GMR v Begumpet
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 14: The AP High Court on Friday admitted a public interest litigation challenging the closure of the Begumpet airport ahead of the opening of the facility at Shamshabad. Justice Prakash Rao, who was on the division bench along with Justice C.Y. Somayajulu, observed, “after seeing news items appearing in today’s newspapers with regard to the Begumpet airport it seems that the government is also reconsidering its earlier decision of complete closure of the airport.”
“We feel it is proper to admit the petition for adjudication as it looks a window is still open to reconsider the earlier decision,” Justice Rao observed. The court will take up final hearing from March 31.
The bench asked to counsel for the Airports Authority of India, Mr Challa Kodanda Ram, about the assurance of the Union government that it would not shut down old airports in Hyderabad and Bangalore but would try to expand operations there.
Counsel replied that he had not received any official communication from the AAI and said that he also seen news reports with regard to the Centre’s assurance. The petition was filed by a local journalist, Mr S. Srinivas Reddy.
Mr Vedula Venkat Ramana, senior counsel for the petitioner, submitted an additional affidavit seeking a direction from the court to set aside the notification issued by the Union government declaring the closure of the Begumpet airport.
He argued that there was no specific provisions in the Aircraft Act 1934 and Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 for the closure of existing airports. He told the court that the court has jurisdiction to review the policy decision of the government if it felt that the decision was not in the public interest.
Court reserves review plea on IAS officers
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 14: The AP High Court on Friday reserved orders on a petition filed by the IAS officer, Mr L.V. Subramanyam, seeking review of its order that IAS officers come under the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta. A division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan heard arguments on the petition.
Mr Subrahmanyam challenged the earlier orders of the division bench of the court. He stated that the bench has not considered the Constitutional validity of Section 7 and 2 of the AP Lok Ayukta Act.
Justice Ranganathan observed that the question had been considered by the division bench in J. Papa Rao versus Government of AP and the bench had held that IAS officers are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta.
He said the bench did not agree that the matter should be considered by a larger bench and dismissed the earlier writ. Justice Rangnathan observed that the officer had sanctioned Rs 11 crore to a company the existence of which was under question. The issue referred to the payment of Rs 11 crore to a firm called Vasishta Wahan for a deal to get a plant of the German car-maker Volkswagen to the state.
Hyderabad, March 14: The AP High Court on Friday reserved orders on a petition filed by the IAS officer, Mr L.V. Subramanyam, seeking review of its order that IAS officers come under the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta. A division bench comprising Chief Justice A.R. Dave and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan heard arguments on the petition.
Mr Subrahmanyam challenged the earlier orders of the division bench of the court. He stated that the bench has not considered the Constitutional validity of Section 7 and 2 of the AP Lok Ayukta Act.
Justice Ranganathan observed that the question had been considered by the division bench in J. Papa Rao versus Government of AP and the bench had held that IAS officers are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta.
He said the bench did not agree that the matter should be considered by a larger bench and dismissed the earlier writ. Justice Rangnathan observed that the officer had sanctioned Rs 11 crore to a company the existence of which was under question. The issue referred to the payment of Rs 11 crore to a firm called Vasishta Wahan for a deal to get a plant of the German car-maker Volkswagen to the state.
Book murder case on encounter cops’
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,March 12: Mr Padmanabha Reddy, the senior criminal lawyer of the AP High Court on Wednesday submitted to a larger bench that a case of murder should be registered against police personnel who participate in encounter killings.The court appointed Mr Reddy as amicus curie to assist the larger bench which has been hearing arguments on a batch of writ petitions seeking disclosure of the names of the police personnel who participated in encounters.
While summing up the arguments, continued from thelast 10 days, he said that there is no other option before the police except registering a case when an information about a cognizable offence was received by the station house officer.Referring to the encounter deaths, Mr Reddy said when an information with regard to a fire and counter fire between the Maoists and police was received by a SHO ,he is booking a case under Section 307 (Attempt toMurder) only and not registering a case of murder (302of IPC) against police even though naxalites are killed in such encounters. And this is not permissible in the law.
Mr Padmanabha Reddy informed the court that the police cannot claim exceptions at the stage of registering a case. He said they can claim either general or special exceptions available in the Acts during the course of trial.The senior criminal lawyer explained to the court that if a boy, aged below seven years, commits a cognizable offence, it is not punishable under the law. However,a case has to registered against the boy and during the course of investigation, the investigation officer should collect the relevant evidence to prove that the boy is lessthan seven years old.Mr Reddy submitted that at the stage of registration of a case, the question of who is the offender and what is his age and position does not arise. It would be dealt during the course of investigation.He said that as per Sections 154 and 157 of CriminalProcedure Code the police have no discretion except to register a case under Section 302 against the police personnel who participate in encounter killings or such encouters resulting in death of naxalites.
Hyderabad,March 12: Mr Padmanabha Reddy, the senior criminal lawyer of the AP High Court on Wednesday submitted to a larger bench that a case of murder should be registered against police personnel who participate in encounter killings.The court appointed Mr Reddy as amicus curie to assist the larger bench which has been hearing arguments on a batch of writ petitions seeking disclosure of the names of the police personnel who participated in encounters.
While summing up the arguments, continued from thelast 10 days, he said that there is no other option before the police except registering a case when an information about a cognizable offence was received by the station house officer.Referring to the encounter deaths, Mr Reddy said when an information with regard to a fire and counter fire between the Maoists and police was received by a SHO ,he is booking a case under Section 307 (Attempt toMurder) only and not registering a case of murder (302of IPC) against police even though naxalites are killed in such encounters. And this is not permissible in the law.
Mr Padmanabha Reddy informed the court that the police cannot claim exceptions at the stage of registering a case. He said they can claim either general or special exceptions available in the Acts during the course of trial.The senior criminal lawyer explained to the court that if a boy, aged below seven years, commits a cognizable offence, it is not punishable under the law. However,a case has to registered against the boy and during the course of investigation, the investigation officer should collect the relevant evidence to prove that the boy is lessthan seven years old.Mr Reddy submitted that at the stage of registration of a case, the question of who is the offender and what is his age and position does not arise. It would be dealt during the course of investigation.He said that as per Sections 154 and 157 of CriminalProcedure Code the police have no discretion except to register a case under Section 302 against the police personnel who participate in encounter killings or such encouters resulting in death of naxalites.
GMR says petitioner should pay
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 13: Mr Abhishek Singhvi, senior counsel of the Supreme Court, appearing on behalf of GMR Hyderabad International Airport on Thursday told the AP High Court that it should direct a petitioner challenging the closure of the Begumpet airport to deposit Rs 1,000 crore. This sum is a fraction of the investment made by his client for construction of the airport at Shamshabad, Mr Singhvi said.
The petition was filed by Mr S. Srinivas Reddy, a local journalist from Saroornagar. Mr Singhvi argued before a division bench of the High Court that if it wanted to pass an interim order on the petition, it should direct that the petitioner to deposit a fraction of the amount of the GMR group’s investment. He told the court that a division bench of the court had earlier refused to pass an interim order on a petition filed by one B. Venkat Papa Rao with regard to the closure of the airport.
Mr Singhvi submitted to the court that the petitioner had misapplied the Section 6 (1) of the Aircraft Act 1934. It was not applicable to Begumpet airport, which comes under the purview of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. He said the decision to close the Begumpet airport was taken in 2000. Mr Singhvi said that the Aircraft Act was amended keeping in view the significant development in the civil aviation sector in India. Mr Singhvi said it was the view of courts that in large infrastructure projects and contractual obligations, no interference should be made by issuing writs. The arguments will continue on Friday.
Hyderabad, March 13: Mr Abhishek Singhvi, senior counsel of the Supreme Court, appearing on behalf of GMR Hyderabad International Airport on Thursday told the AP High Court that it should direct a petitioner challenging the closure of the Begumpet airport to deposit Rs 1,000 crore. This sum is a fraction of the investment made by his client for construction of the airport at Shamshabad, Mr Singhvi said.
The petition was filed by Mr S. Srinivas Reddy, a local journalist from Saroornagar. Mr Singhvi argued before a division bench of the High Court that if it wanted to pass an interim order on the petition, it should direct that the petitioner to deposit a fraction of the amount of the GMR group’s investment. He told the court that a division bench of the court had earlier refused to pass an interim order on a petition filed by one B. Venkat Papa Rao with regard to the closure of the airport.
Mr Singhvi submitted to the court that the petitioner had misapplied the Section 6 (1) of the Aircraft Act 1934. It was not applicable to Begumpet airport, which comes under the purview of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. He said the decision to close the Begumpet airport was taken in 2000. Mr Singhvi said that the Aircraft Act was amended keeping in view the significant development in the civil aviation sector in India. Mr Singhvi said it was the view of courts that in large infrastructure projects and contractual obligations, no interference should be made by issuing writs. The arguments will continue on Friday.
Writ objects to delay in Shamshabad poll
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 12: A writ petition was filed in the AP High Court on Wednesday challenging the decision to put off a local election in Shamshabad in view of the inauguration of GMR Rajiv Gandhi International Airport on March 14. The State Election Commission (SEC) had put on hold the election to Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) seat in Shamshabad.
Mr D. Venkatesh Goud of Shamshabad told the court that he had intended to contest the election and had made arrangements to file the nomination. He contended that the SEC had taken the decision following the plea of the Ranga Reddy district collector to postpone the election because of the inauguration of the airport. The petitioner informed the court that the SEC decision was contrary to the AP Panchayat Raj Rules 2006.
He urged the court to suspend the notification of the SEC.
Mr D. Venkatesh Goud of Shamshabad told the court that he had intended to contest the election and had made arrangements to file the nomination. He contended that the SEC had taken the decision following the plea of the Ranga Reddy district collector to postpone the election because of the inauguration of the airport. The petitioner informed the court that the SEC decision was contrary to the AP Panchayat Raj Rules 2006.
He urged the court to suspend the notification of the SEC.
Airport closure can’t be reviewed: Centre
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 13: The Centre informed the AP High Court that the process of commissioning of a new airport at Shamshabad had started almost a decade ago and the process was finalised in 2004. This included the provision to close the airport at Begumpet.
The assistant solicitor-general, Mr A Rajasekhar Reddy, submitted before a division bench comprising Justice B. Prakash Rao and Justice C.Y. Somayajulu that the Centre had issued a notification for the closure of Begumpet airport.
He told the court that the decision fell within the realm of a policy decision and was outside the scope of judicial review. Supreme Court senior counsel, Mr Abhishek Singhvi, and the additional attorney-general of India, Mr Sharan, will appear on behalf of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited and the Union government on Thursday.
The assistant solicitor-general, Mr A Rajasekhar Reddy, submitted before a division bench comprising Justice B. Prakash Rao and Justice C.Y. Somayajulu that the Centre had issued a notification for the closure of Begumpet airport.
He told the court that the decision fell within the realm of a policy decision and was outside the scope of judicial review. Supreme Court senior counsel, Mr Abhishek Singhvi, and the additional attorney-general of India, Mr Sharan, will appear on behalf of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited and the Union government on Thursday.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Eenaadu Ramoji fined Rs 10K for foul statements
By S A IshaquiHyderabad, March 11: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on media baron Ch Ramoji Rao for not withdrawing the allegations made against the Chief Minister, Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, in a writ petition. A division bench of the high court comprising Justice B. Prakash Rao and Justice Somayajulu, while dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by Margadarsi Financiers owned by Mr Ramoji Rao, challenging the notices of the Income-Tax department, expressed dismay over the allegations on a person (the Chief Minister), who was not made a party in the writ.
“How can you make allegation on a person without making him a respondent?” the bench asked the petitioner, Margadarsi Financiers. “Why have you not withdrawn the allegation even after you gave an assurance to the court during the last hearing,” the court further questioned the petitioner. The petitioner had alleged that the Chief Minister had been instigating “illegal action” against him with political vengeance.
He told the court that the I-T department was summoning employees of their firm. He also alleged that the joint commissioner of the I-T department was influenced by the corridors of power and, with directions from vested interests, was abusing his power to fabricate a false case against him.
Justice Prakash Rao asked the petitioner: “How can the court entertain such petitions containing personal allegations and derogatory remarks on a third party. You withdraw your allegation or petitions. The option is yours.” The petitioner withdrew the petitions following which the court permitted him to file a fresh petition. The petitioner Margadarsi Financiers told the court that the income-tax department had issued a notice to them on December 14, 2007, to furnish details of receipt of deposits, mode of receipts of deposits by cheque, demand draft and pay order.
“How can you make allegation on a person without making him a respondent?” the bench asked the petitioner, Margadarsi Financiers. “Why have you not withdrawn the allegation even after you gave an assurance to the court during the last hearing,” the court further questioned the petitioner. The petitioner had alleged that the Chief Minister had been instigating “illegal action” against him with political vengeance.
He told the court that the I-T department was summoning employees of their firm. He also alleged that the joint commissioner of the I-T department was influenced by the corridors of power and, with directions from vested interests, was abusing his power to fabricate a false case against him.
Justice Prakash Rao asked the petitioner: “How can the court entertain such petitions containing personal allegations and derogatory remarks on a third party. You withdraw your allegation or petitions. The option is yours.” The petitioner withdrew the petitions following which the court permitted him to file a fresh petition. The petitioner Margadarsi Financiers told the court that the income-tax department had issued a notice to them on December 14, 2007, to furnish details of receipt of deposits, mode of receipts of deposits by cheque, demand draft and pay order.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
State opposes case against cops
By S A IshaquiHyderabad, March 10: The Advocate-General, Mr CV Mohan Reddy,on Monday argued before a larger bench of the AP High Court that theregistering of cases against police personnel involved in encountersunder Section 302 of IPC will be disastrous to society.Reacting to a straight query from the larger bench that what's wrong ifa case is registered against the police personnel who participated inencounter, the AG said "if court interprets that a case under Section 302of IPC must be registered in every case of encounter it is disastrous tosociety".He also said "police have been using their weapons to discharge alawful duty. If registration of a case has become mandatory nopoliceman will dare to use his weapon for the protection of people andtheir safety".Justice G Raghuram observed "you are registering a case againstunknown maoists\naxalites under Section 307 of IPC following deathin an incident of exchange of fire. It is undisputed fact that the policeare admitting that death took place during exchange of fire. In thesecircumstances what's wrong in registering a case of murder against thepolice. Similarly, you register a murder case against the police and lateryou should avail of plea of quash, which is a remedy available in law".
Notices against Chiru, brothers
Hyderabad, March 10: Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday issued noticesto film star Pavan Kalyan and his actor-brothers Chranjeevi and NagendraBabu and other family members on a revision petition filed by Ms K Nandini,wife of Pavan Kalyan.Justice GV Seethapathy, while dealing with the petition, refused to grantstayon a lower court order dismissing a case filed by Nandini. The court askedthe respondents to submit their replies within four weeks.It may be mentioned that Ms Nandini on Friday filed a revision petition intheAP High court. The petitioner challenged the orders of the First AdditionalChief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam on February 25.The lower court dismissed a complaint filed by Ms Nandini against PavanKalyan seeking his prosecution under Section 494 of IPC.The lower court dismissed the petition with an observation that thecomplainant had failed to establish the ingredients required to constitutetheoffence under Section 494 of IPC.The court said the complainant also failed to prove that Pavan Kalyanmarried actress Renu Desai.Nandini included Pavan Kalyan's mother Anjana Devi, Chiranjeevi,Nagendra Babu, brother-in law Allu Arvind and other family membersbesides Renu Desai as respondents in the petition.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Film Star Pavan Kalyan’s wife approaches High Court
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 7: Ms K Nandini, first wife of film star Pavan Kalyan, on Friday filed a revision petition in the AP High court.
The petitioner challenged the orders of the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam on February 25.
The lower court dismissed a complaint filed by Ms Nandini against Pavan Kalyan seeking his prosecution under Section 494 of IPC.
The lower court dismissed the petition with an observation that the complainant had failed to establish the ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 494 of IPC.
The petitioner challenged the orders of the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam on February 25.
The lower court dismissed a complaint filed by Ms Nandini against Pavan Kalyan seeking his prosecution under Section 494 of IPC.
The lower court dismissed the petition with an observation that the complainant had failed to establish the ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 494 of IPC.
The court said the complainant also failed to prove that Pavan Kalyan married actress Renu Desai.
Ms Nandini alleged that the lower court order was perverse, palpable. She said the lower court grossly failed to consider the nature of claim made by her.
She included Pavan Kalyan's mother Anjana Devi and his brothers Chiranjeevi, Nagendra Babu, brother-in law Allu Arvind and other family members besides Renu Desai as respondents in the petition.
She submitted to the court that she married Pavan Kalyan on May 17, 1997 as per custom and Hindu marital rites at Shirdi. She alleged that her husband was greedy and money-minded and used to harass her to bring more dowry and also valuable articles keeping his high status in mind.
She alleged that Chiranjeevi and others abetted Pavan Kalyan to have second marriage with Ms Renu Desai. She urged the court to set aside the orders of the lower court.
Ms Nandini alleged that the lower court order was perverse, palpable. She said the lower court grossly failed to consider the nature of claim made by her.
She included Pavan Kalyan's mother Anjana Devi and his brothers Chiranjeevi, Nagendra Babu, brother-in law Allu Arvind and other family members besides Renu Desai as respondents in the petition.
She submitted to the court that she married Pavan Kalyan on May 17, 1997 as per custom and Hindu marital rites at Shirdi. She alleged that her husband was greedy and money-minded and used to harass her to bring more dowry and also valuable articles keeping his high status in mind.
She alleged that Chiranjeevi and others abetted Pavan Kalyan to have second marriage with Ms Renu Desai. She urged the court to set aside the orders of the lower court.
Complaint against Ramoji dismissed
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 7:
The First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ms Y.H. Prameela Reddy, on Friday rejected a complaint filed by the Crime Investigation Department against media baron Ch Ramoji Rao and Margadarsi Financiers which he owns.
The inspector-general (CID), Mr T. Krishna Raju, who is the authorised officer of Margadarsi Financiers case, filed the complaint against Mr Ramoji Rao and his firm for alleged violation of Section 45-s (1), (i) and 45-s (2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1953.
However, the additional chief metropolitan magistrate passed orders rejecting the complaints stating that a special leave petition was pending in Supreme Court with regard to the same matter. It was also observed that the complainant had failed to submit thestatements of 865 depositors recorded by the complainant during the course of inquiry of the case.It may be mentioned that the CID has searched the premises of Margadarsi Financiers on February 21, 2007 and seized relevant documents, deposit certificates and a hard disc. Krishna Raju submitted to the court that Margadarsi Financiers established as Hindu Undivided Family firm and the firm has no right to accept deposits from other persons who are not relatives.He told the court that the accused had violated Section 45(s) of the RBI Act and investigation revealed that the depositors of the Margadarsi Financiers were general public and they were not related to the accused.
Hyderabad, March 7:
The First Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ms Y.H. Prameela Reddy, on Friday rejected a complaint filed by the Crime Investigation Department against media baron Ch Ramoji Rao and Margadarsi Financiers which he owns.
The inspector-general (CID), Mr T. Krishna Raju, who is the authorised officer of Margadarsi Financiers case, filed the complaint against Mr Ramoji Rao and his firm for alleged violation of Section 45-s (1), (i) and 45-s (2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1953.
However, the additional chief metropolitan magistrate passed orders rejecting the complaints stating that a special leave petition was pending in Supreme Court with regard to the same matter. It was also observed that the complainant had failed to submit thestatements of 865 depositors recorded by the complainant during the course of inquiry of the case.It may be mentioned that the CID has searched the premises of Margadarsi Financiers on February 21, 2007 and seized relevant documents, deposit certificates and a hard disc. Krishna Raju submitted to the court that Margadarsi Financiers established as Hindu Undivided Family firm and the firm has no right to accept deposits from other persons who are not relatives.He told the court that the accused had violated Section 45(s) of the RBI Act and investigation revealed that the depositors of the Margadarsi Financiers were general public and they were not related to the accused.
Name babus facing cases of graft: High Court
Hyderabad, March 7: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday directed the state government to furnish the names of the IAS officers against whom the Anti Corruption Bureau had recommended action.
Justice N.V. Ramana, while dealing with a petition filed by the senior bureaucrat Shafiquzzaman, said the court would pass appropriate orders if the government failed to provide the details by Tuesday.
The court did not accept the plea of Mr. Krishna Murthy, counsel for the General Administration Department, that it needed two months to provide the details.
The judge said the Chief Information Commissioner had directed on September 29, 2007, that the government to furnish the information. "Already five and a half months have passed," he said. "Now again you are asking for two more months. It is not fair."
Justice Ramana asked how many IAS officers were in the State. Mr. Krishna Murthy replied that there were 319 IAS officers in the State. The judge asked as on today what's the information available with regard to IAS officers, against whom the ACB conducted inquiry.The judge said "you have not given a single piece of information. Even the court asked to provide available information to it. It seems you did not even make attempt to collect information". The court said it was not satisfied with the counter affidavit filed by the government.PV Krishnaiah alleged that the government had been dilly-dallying oversubmission of the list of IAS officers, against whom the ACB has recommended departmental action.
Justice N.V. Ramana, while dealing with a petition filed by the senior bureaucrat Shafiquzzaman, said the court would pass appropriate orders if the government failed to provide the details by Tuesday.
The court did not accept the plea of Mr. Krishna Murthy, counsel for the General Administration Department, that it needed two months to provide the details.
The judge said the Chief Information Commissioner had directed on September 29, 2007, that the government to furnish the information. "Already five and a half months have passed," he said. "Now again you are asking for two more months. It is not fair."
Justice Ramana asked how many IAS officers were in the State. Mr. Krishna Murthy replied that there were 319 IAS officers in the State. The judge asked as on today what's the information available with regard to IAS officers, against whom the ACB conducted inquiry.The judge said "you have not given a single piece of information. Even the court asked to provide available information to it. It seems you did not even make attempt to collect information". The court said it was not satisfied with the counter affidavit filed by the government.PV Krishnaiah alleged that the government had been dilly-dallying oversubmission of the list of IAS officers, against whom the ACB has recommended departmental action.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
HR panel questions police ‘dual policy’
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 5: Senior counsel K G Kannabhiran onWednesday submitted before a larger bench of the AP HighCourt that as per the law police cannot refuse to register acomplaint with related to culpable homicide.He argued that whenever a complaint of such nature wasreceived by the police it should be registered and tried in thecourt.
A five member larger bench headed by Justice G Raghuramheard the arguments on the third day. The bench is hearing on abatch of writ petitions of whether the names of police personnelwho participate in encounters should be revealed or not.Mr Kannabhiran said the government or police cannot withholdthe names of the criminals who are harboured by them.Mr Raghunath counsel for the Civil Liberties Committee allegedthat the police are adopting the dual policy for the registration ofencounter death cases. He said when it comes to the turn of thepolice, they register a case against the unidentified naxalites andif any person approach them to lodge a complaint against thepolice they simply refused the complaint saying that it did nothave specific names.
Hyderabad, March 5: Senior counsel K G Kannabhiran onWednesday submitted before a larger bench of the AP HighCourt that as per the law police cannot refuse to register acomplaint with related to culpable homicide.He argued that whenever a complaint of such nature wasreceived by the police it should be registered and tried in thecourt.
A five member larger bench headed by Justice G Raghuramheard the arguments on the third day. The bench is hearing on abatch of writ petitions of whether the names of police personnelwho participate in encounters should be revealed or not.Mr Kannabhiran said the government or police cannot withholdthe names of the criminals who are harboured by them.Mr Raghunath counsel for the Civil Liberties Committee allegedthat the police are adopting the dual policy for the registration ofencounter death cases. He said when it comes to the turn of thepolice, they register a case against the unidentified naxalites andif any person approach them to lodge a complaint against thepolice they simply refused the complaint saying that it did nothave specific names.
AP High Court refused to grant stay on Begumpet Airport
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 5: A division bench of the AP High Court on Wednesdayrefused to pass interim orders on a writpetition challenging the closure of Begumpet airport.B Venkata Papa Rao, resident of Medchal in Ranga Reddy district, filed apublic interest litigation in the courtstating that the respondents had decided to shut down the Begumpet airportsimultaneously with the opening of thenew green field airport at Shamshabad.The petitioner submitted to the court that the expansion and improvementsat the Begumpet airport were made at thecost of the public funds. He told the court the present facilities werestated to be adequate and sufficient for servingthe air traffic and passenger movement for the next 10 years.A Sharan, Additional Solicitor General of India while arguing the casesaid the decision of closing the Begumpetairport has been taken in 2000 itself. He urged the court to throw out thepetition at very threshold. He said that thepetition was not within the parameters prescribed of the law.Mr Sharan told the court the decision to close the begumpet airport wasbased on the recommendation of the TaskForce which was appointed to study the airports and other infrastructureprojects in the country. Therecommendations of the Task Force was approved by the central cabinet also.D Prakash Reddy, senior counsel for the petitioner argued that thegovernment of India appointed a specialcommittee to study the airports in the country. It was recommended for theconstruction of new airport atShamshabad and with regard to Begumpet airport the committee expressedthat the decision would be taken after adetailed techno and economic study of the traffic.He said that the petitioner wanted to know on what basis the governmenthas taken the decision of the closer of theexisting airport.The Chief Justice A R Dave asked Mr Sharan whether it would be possible toplace records of the cabinet decision.Mr Sharan replied that it would not be possible and there is no suchpractise of placing the records of cabinetdecisions even in the Supreme Court.The court asked the Additional Solicitor General to submit the report ofTask Force with a note mentioning that therecommendations were approved by the cabinet. The case was posted to April 4.
Hyderabad, March 5: A division bench of the AP High Court on Wednesdayrefused to pass interim orders on a writpetition challenging the closure of Begumpet airport.B Venkata Papa Rao, resident of Medchal in Ranga Reddy district, filed apublic interest litigation in the courtstating that the respondents had decided to shut down the Begumpet airportsimultaneously with the opening of thenew green field airport at Shamshabad.The petitioner submitted to the court that the expansion and improvementsat the Begumpet airport were made at thecost of the public funds. He told the court the present facilities werestated to be adequate and sufficient for servingthe air traffic and passenger movement for the next 10 years.A Sharan, Additional Solicitor General of India while arguing the casesaid the decision of closing the Begumpetairport has been taken in 2000 itself. He urged the court to throw out thepetition at very threshold. He said that thepetition was not within the parameters prescribed of the law.Mr Sharan told the court the decision to close the begumpet airport wasbased on the recommendation of the TaskForce which was appointed to study the airports and other infrastructureprojects in the country. Therecommendations of the Task Force was approved by the central cabinet also.D Prakash Reddy, senior counsel for the petitioner argued that thegovernment of India appointed a specialcommittee to study the airports in the country. It was recommended for theconstruction of new airport atShamshabad and with regard to Begumpet airport the committee expressedthat the decision would be taken after adetailed techno and economic study of the traffic.He said that the petitioner wanted to know on what basis the governmenthas taken the decision of the closer of theexisting airport.The Chief Justice A R Dave asked Mr Sharan whether it would be possible toplace records of the cabinet decision.Mr Sharan replied that it would not be possible and there is no suchpractise of placing the records of cabinetdecisions even in the Supreme Court.The court asked the Additional Solicitor General to submit the report ofTask Force with a note mentioning that therecommendations were approved by the cabinet. The case was posted to April 4.
PIL dismissed on TRS resignations
Hyderabad, March 5: Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed aPublic Interest Litigation,stating that it will not intervene with discretionary powers of theSpeaker of the State Legislative Assembly.S Raju, resident of Bank Street in Koti area filed a petition seeking a direction from the court to AssemblySpeaker K.R. Suresh Reddy not to accept the resignation of the TRS MLAsand MLCs.The petitioner told the court that 16 MLAs and three MLCs of TRSsubmitted their resignation on Tuesdayto the Speaker and the Chairman of AP Legislative Council respectively.He submitted that TRS president K Chandrasekhar Rao who was elected as MPfrom Karimnagarconstituency submitted his resignation along with three MPs of his partyon Monday and the LoksabhaSpeaker accepted their resignation within no time.The petitioner told the court that earlier also KCR resigned as MP only onthe ground that the then ministerchallenged him. He said that this time also his resignation was acceptedwithin no time and KCR was re -elected from the constituency in bye-election.He submitted that submitting of resignations and re-electing again inbye-elections, these leaders were not atall concerned about the burden on public exchequer due to theseresignations and bye-elections.He told the court that as per the Article 190(3)(b) it is obligatory onthe part of the Speaker to seekinformation and conduct enquiry to know whether the members voluntarilyresigned or were they compelledto submit their resignations because of their party decision.While dealing with the petition, a division bench comprising Chief JusticeA R Dave and Justice T ChSurya Rao asked the petitioner whether the Speaker has accepted theresignations.The petitioner replied that so far they have not been accepted.Ravishankar Jandhyala , counsel for the Legislative Assembly submitted thecourt that neither a person nora court can give a directive to the Speaker with regard to acceptance ofthe resignations. He said "it is theprerogative of the Speaker and he already had a first round ofconsultations with the members whosubmitted their resignations to know whether they have resigned with theirown will and consent."He urged the court to dismiss the petition as it seems not in the interestof the public.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Encounter cops’ list asked for
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad: The AP Civil Liberties Committee on Tuesday submitted before the AP High Court that the State government cannot withhold information on police personnel who take part in encounters.
A larger bench comprising Justice G. Raghuram, Justice V.V.S. Rao, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice G. Bhavani Prasad is hearing the case. Senior counsel Bojja Tarakam, arguing for APCLC, said the state government cannot claim any privilege under Section 123 of Evidence Act and the police cannot use section 8 (G) of the Right to Information Act to withhold the names of its personnel. The government knew the names of the officers and not providing them amounted to suppression of evidence, he said.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Police cannot claim of self defence
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, March 3: An investigating officer in police encounter cases
cannot give his verdict on the probe, senior counsels KG Kannabhiran
and Bojja Takaram on Monday argued before a larger bench of the AP
High Court.
They argued that law does not allow a police officer to claim right of
self defence.
The High Court has taken up, for the first time in the country, a hearing
on a batch of writ petitions to decide whether the names of police
personnel, who participate in an encounter, should be disclosed.
The larger bench headed by Justice G Raghuram and Justice VVS Rao,
Justice R Subhash Reddy, Justice Ramesh Ranagnathan and Justice G
Bhavani Prasad heard day-long arguments.
It had permitted the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to
implead as one of the parties in the petition. The bench asked the
counsel for CHRI, Mr Trideep Pais, to file his counter affidavit.
While beginning the arguments the Advocate-General, Mr CV Mohan
Reddy, asked the court to implead the Union Government as one of the
respondents in the matter.
He told the court that as many as 13 states in the country were affected
by the Maoist problem and several intricacies were involved in the
matter and it would be better to make the Union Government as a party
in the hearing.
The bench observed that the subject of law and order is in the purview
of the State and the petitions pertaining to the incidents have been
taken place in the state itself.
Mr Kannabhiran argued that the issue could not be viewed only at law
and order perception. It involved socio-economic aspects and it would
be suggestible to make the Union Government as a respondent.
The bench observed that it would take decision in due course.
Mr Tarakam argued that right of self defence can only be claimed by a
person when he is an accused in the case. He asked the court that in the
case of encounter killings the police were never shown as accused and
then how could they claim the right?
He informed the court that as per Section 154 of CRPC "when a police
officer receives oral information about a cognizable offence he is
required to reduce it to writing and proceed. If the police officer
receives a written complaint of a cognizable offence, he has to enter it
in the relevant register and investigate. He has no other option".
He said "in encounter death cases police registering a case of attempt to
murder against the naxalites and they did not even mention about the
death taking place during the encounter. Later they are closing the case
claiming right of self defence".
Mr Kannabhiran alleged that this stereotype of investigation had been
going on in the state from 1969. The arguments will continue on
Tuesday.
Hyderabad, March 3: An investigating officer in police encounter cases
cannot give his verdict on the probe, senior counsels KG Kannabhiran
and Bojja Takaram on Monday argued before a larger bench of the AP
High Court.
They argued that law does not allow a police officer to claim right of
self defence.
The High Court has taken up, for the first time in the country, a hearing
on a batch of writ petitions to decide whether the names of police
personnel, who participate in an encounter, should be disclosed.
The larger bench headed by Justice G Raghuram and Justice VVS Rao,
Justice R Subhash Reddy, Justice Ramesh Ranagnathan and Justice G
Bhavani Prasad heard day-long arguments.
It had permitted the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to
implead as one of the parties in the petition. The bench asked the
counsel for CHRI, Mr Trideep Pais, to file his counter affidavit.
While beginning the arguments the Advocate-General, Mr CV Mohan
Reddy, asked the court to implead the Union Government as one of the
respondents in the matter.
He told the court that as many as 13 states in the country were affected
by the Maoist problem and several intricacies were involved in the
matter and it would be better to make the Union Government as a party
in the hearing.
The bench observed that the subject of law and order is in the purview
of the State and the petitions pertaining to the incidents have been
taken place in the state itself.
Mr Kannabhiran argued that the issue could not be viewed only at law
and order perception. It involved socio-economic aspects and it would
be suggestible to make the Union Government as a respondent.
The bench observed that it would take decision in due course.
Mr Tarakam argued that right of self defence can only be claimed by a
person when he is an accused in the case. He asked the court that in the
case of encounter killings the police were never shown as accused and
then how could they claim the right?
He informed the court that as per Section 154 of CRPC "when a police
officer receives oral information about a cognizable offence he is
required to reduce it to writing and proceed. If the police officer
receives a written complaint of a cognizable offence, he has to enter it
in the relevant register and investigate. He has no other option".
He said "in encounter death cases police registering a case of attempt to
murder against the naxalites and they did not even mention about the
death taking place during the encounter. Later they are closing the case
claiming right of self defence".
Mr Kannabhiran alleged that this stereotype of investigation had been
going on in the state from 1969. The arguments will continue on
Tuesday.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Directive to Coke
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Feb. 29: Andhra Pradesh High Court on Fridaydirected that Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd should complywith Rule 6 (1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.Justice NV Ramana issued the direction while passing an orderreleasing the company’s products worth Rs 3 crore seized by theweights and measures department recently at Moula Ali.The company filed a writ petition in the court stating thatofficials of the weights and measures department inspected itsplant at Moula Ali on February 13 and seized products includingFanta, Limca, Sprite and others worth Rs 3 crore saying that thecompany did not comply with the Rule.WB Srinivas, standing counsel for the weights and measures,submitted to the court that according to the Rule the companyshould print name and address along with the help line and emailof the person who can be contacted in case a consumer wants tocomplain.He said the company did not follow the Rule and it had printedonly the help line and email on its products.Senior counsel Padmanabha Reddy argued on behalf of thepetitioner that the officials had gone beyond the scope of theSection and have acted illegally.However, the judge directed the weights and measuresdepartment to release the stock with immediate effect and askedthe company to comply with the Rule hereinafter.
Hyderabad, Feb. 29: Andhra Pradesh High Court on Fridaydirected that Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd should complywith Rule 6 (1A) of the Standards of Weights and Measures(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.Justice NV Ramana issued the direction while passing an orderreleasing the company’s products worth Rs 3 crore seized by theweights and measures department recently at Moula Ali.The company filed a writ petition in the court stating thatofficials of the weights and measures department inspected itsplant at Moula Ali on February 13 and seized products includingFanta, Limca, Sprite and others worth Rs 3 crore saying that thecompany did not comply with the Rule.WB Srinivas, standing counsel for the weights and measures,submitted to the court that according to the Rule the companyshould print name and address along with the help line and emailof the person who can be contacted in case a consumer wants tocomplain.He said the company did not follow the Rule and it had printedonly the help line and email on its products.Senior counsel Padmanabha Reddy argued on behalf of thepetitioner that the officials had gone beyond the scope of theSection and have acted illegally.However, the judge directed the weights and measuresdepartment to release the stock with immediate effect and askedthe company to comply with the Rule hereinafter.
Court wants case against Wipro
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad: The additional chief metropolitan magistrate on Friday asked the Saifabad police to register a case against Wipro Ltd and its chairman Azim Premji for allegedly polluting the city’s main sources of drinking water.
The court passed orders on a complaint filed by an advocate, Mr T. Kumar Babu, alleging that Wipro was polluting water in Himayatsagar and Osmansagar with constructions in the catchment area of the reservoirs.
The government has prohibited constructions and industries within a 10-km radius of Himayatsagar and Osmansagar to protect the reservoirs from pollution and to provide clean drinking water. Mr Babu alleged that various bureaucrats and the managing director of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation had illegally allotted 100 acres to Wipro within the radius of the prohibited zone.
He said this was criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and urged the court to register a case against the Wipro chairman, the chief secretary, the principal secretary, municipal administration, and the MD of APIIC under Sections 409, 277 and 120 (b) of the IPC.
Hyderabad: The additional chief metropolitan magistrate on Friday asked the Saifabad police to register a case against Wipro Ltd and its chairman Azim Premji for allegedly polluting the city’s main sources of drinking water.
The court passed orders on a complaint filed by an advocate, Mr T. Kumar Babu, alleging that Wipro was polluting water in Himayatsagar and Osmansagar with constructions in the catchment area of the reservoirs.
The government has prohibited constructions and industries within a 10-km radius of Himayatsagar and Osmansagar to protect the reservoirs from pollution and to provide clean drinking water. Mr Babu alleged that various bureaucrats and the managing director of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation had illegally allotted 100 acres to Wipro within the radius of the prohibited zone.
He said this was criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and urged the court to register a case against the Wipro chairman, the chief secretary, the principal secretary, municipal administration, and the MD of APIIC under Sections 409, 277 and 120 (b) of the IPC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)