By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec. 30: The AP High Court on Wednesday made it clear that violence is not the way to achieve a demand in democracy.
While dealing with anticipatory bail petitions filed by Mr K. Raju and others, Justice B. Chandrakumar observed that “in a democratic country, every person has the right to agitate for a legitimate right and organise meetings, hunger strikes and even demonstrations in a peaceful manner. No one has the right to destroy public and private property to push for their demand.”
Considering the agitation for separate Telangana and united Andhra Pradesh, the judge said freedom of expression is a fundamental right but it should be used in a legitimate manner.
He said problems can be solved through discussions and not by threatening others.
Mr K. Raju and 11 others were arrested by the police at Veerlapadu in Krishna district recently while they were agitating for united Andhra Pradesh. The police registered cases under Sections 147, 148, 188, 307, 324, 332 , 353 and 427 of IPC against them.
The judge, while granting anticipatory bail to 11 persons, directed them to surrender before the police within 15 days. He directed the police to grant bail in case of their surrender by obtaining Rs 3,000 as a surety for each. The judge rejected the bail application of Mr Raju.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Compensation for mishap victims based on future earnings
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec. 26: In a significant judgement deciding compensation for a road accident victim, the Andhra Pradesh High Court evolved a rational and scientific method by which the victims, two final year students of software engineering, were awarded an amount based on their potential earnings.
In arriving at the compensation, the bench took into consideration the pay pack they would have got at the entry level as well as over a time period by calculating the pay based on that of their surviving companions.
A division bench comprising Justice A. Gopala Reddy and Justice B. Chandra Kumar while allowing two civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the parents of two engineering students awarded a sum of Rs 10,80,000 to the claimants. The money has to be paid by insurance firms.
The court said the claimants are also entitled to Rs 5,000 as funeral expenses and Rs 5,000 towards loss of estate.
G. Prashanth Reddy and B. Ravi Kumar of Mahbubnagar district were killed in road accidents while they were going along with 14 of their friends on eight motorcycles in 1995 at Tumkur in Karnataka.
The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Mahbubnagar considering that both the deceased were only students, fixed the notional income of each deceased at Rs 5,000 per month awarded the compensation of Rs 3,90,000 to each claimant.
The court considered that the minimum wage of an engineer at the entry level is Rs 12,000 and awarded the compensation.
Hyderabad, Dec. 26: In a significant judgement deciding compensation for a road accident victim, the Andhra Pradesh High Court evolved a rational and scientific method by which the victims, two final year students of software engineering, were awarded an amount based on their potential earnings.
In arriving at the compensation, the bench took into consideration the pay pack they would have got at the entry level as well as over a time period by calculating the pay based on that of their surviving companions.
A division bench comprising Justice A. Gopala Reddy and Justice B. Chandra Kumar while allowing two civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the parents of two engineering students awarded a sum of Rs 10,80,000 to the claimants. The money has to be paid by insurance firms.
The court said the claimants are also entitled to Rs 5,000 as funeral expenses and Rs 5,000 towards loss of estate.
G. Prashanth Reddy and B. Ravi Kumar of Mahbubnagar district were killed in road accidents while they were going along with 14 of their friends on eight motorcycles in 1995 at Tumkur in Karnataka.
The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Mahbubnagar considering that both the deceased were only students, fixed the notional income of each deceased at Rs 5,000 per month awarded the compensation of Rs 3,90,000 to each claimant.
The court considered that the minimum wage of an engineer at the entry level is Rs 12,000 and awarded the compensation.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
AP High Court will hear a plea against CJ’s recommendations of judges
Hyderabad, Dec. 22: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday decided to hear a petition filed against the recommendation the Chief Justice to elevate four advocates of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Bar for the post of judges.
Mr Vasireddy Prabhunath, a practising advocate of the High Court, filed the writ contesting that the action of the CJ was illegal. The petitioner contended that the CJ had failed to take into account several eligible legal professionals like him and hence he was aggrieved.
The High Court registry raised certain objections on whether such a petition can be entertained by the High Court when the CJ was made a respondent.
Overruling the objections raised by the registry, a division bench comprising Justice V.V.S. Rao and Justice N.B. Narayana Rao while deciding to hear the petition directed the registry to number the petition.
The bench observed that the objections raised by the registry cannot be sustained in view of four judgements rendered by the Supreme Court in similar cases on an earlier occasion.
Earlier, the petition came up before another division bench but the petitioner objected that the bench cannot hear the petition as one of the advocates whose name was empanelled for the judge is close to a judge who is a member in the bench. The bench referred the case to the CJ with a request to post the petition before another bench. The petitioner levelled charges of favouritism against the CJ in recommending the names of certain advocates to be made judges of the High Court. The CJ had recently sent four names of advocates to New Delhi to be made judges. The bench posted the matter to January third week for admission and regular hearing.
Mr Vasireddy Prabhunath, a practising advocate of the High Court, filed the writ contesting that the action of the CJ was illegal. The petitioner contended that the CJ had failed to take into account several eligible legal professionals like him and hence he was aggrieved.
The High Court registry raised certain objections on whether such a petition can be entertained by the High Court when the CJ was made a respondent.
Overruling the objections raised by the registry, a division bench comprising Justice V.V.S. Rao and Justice N.B. Narayana Rao while deciding to hear the petition directed the registry to number the petition.
The bench observed that the objections raised by the registry cannot be sustained in view of four judgements rendered by the Supreme Court in similar cases on an earlier occasion.
Earlier, the petition came up before another division bench but the petitioner objected that the bench cannot hear the petition as one of the advocates whose name was empanelled for the judge is close to a judge who is a member in the bench. The bench referred the case to the CJ with a request to post the petition before another bench. The petitioner levelled charges of favouritism against the CJ in recommending the names of certain advocates to be made judges of the High Court. The CJ had recently sent four names of advocates to New Delhi to be made judges. The bench posted the matter to January third week for admission and regular hearing.
Friday, December 18, 2009
AP High Court seeks policy of state for deputation of All India Officers
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Dec. 17: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday directed the state government to place before the court the policy adopted to take deputation of All India Service Officers working in other states into the state service.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy was hearing a petition filed by an advocate Mr K, Muralikrishna who questioned the policy of deputations being pursued both by the Centre and the state governments.
The judges wondered as to how the state government had allowed Mr Brahmananda Reddy who is an IRTS officer to occupy the position of managing director of AP Aviation Corporation.
The judges referring to the chopper crash that killed Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, said: “It is this careless attitude that cost the state dearly and killed an important leader. Had there been an aviation expert in place of Brahmanada Reddy at the relevant time, this mishap would not have taken place.” The petitioner questioned the deputations of Mr K. Brahmananda Reddy, an IRTS officer, Ms K. Ratnaprabha, a Karnataka cadre IAS officer currently working in Andhra Pradesh as the principal secretary of the transport department, Mr M.G.V.K. Bhanu, an Assam cadre IAS officer who till recently worked in the Chief Minister’s Office and Mr A.V. Dharma Reddy, an IDES officer who is currently working with TTD and several others.
The government pleader while making his submission regarding the inter cadre deputation of Ms K. Ratnaprabha, told the court that though the Centre had rejected her application for an extension of deputation, she is continuing on the basis of an order of a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Mr S.R. Sunku, counsel for the petitioner told the court that the state is acting in an erratic manner while dealing with the deputations and allowing unconnected persons in important positions.
The judges said: “Place before us the policy you have in this regard. You can consider the requests of the officers if their purpose is to keep them closer to their wives and children. But the departments should not suffer.”
The government pleader told the court that as such there was no policy for the deputations. He said that he will explain their policy regarding IRTS and other Central services.
He submitted that regarding IAS and IPS cases, it is the Centre which has to explain its policy on inter cadre deputations. The bench asked all the concerned to file their affidavits in this matter within four weeks.
Hyderabad,Dec. 17: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday directed the state government to place before the court the policy adopted to take deputation of All India Service Officers working in other states into the state service.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy was hearing a petition filed by an advocate Mr K, Muralikrishna who questioned the policy of deputations being pursued both by the Centre and the state governments.
The judges wondered as to how the state government had allowed Mr Brahmananda Reddy who is an IRTS officer to occupy the position of managing director of AP Aviation Corporation.
The judges referring to the chopper crash that killed Dr Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy, said: “It is this careless attitude that cost the state dearly and killed an important leader. Had there been an aviation expert in place of Brahmanada Reddy at the relevant time, this mishap would not have taken place.” The petitioner questioned the deputations of Mr K. Brahmananda Reddy, an IRTS officer, Ms K. Ratnaprabha, a Karnataka cadre IAS officer currently working in Andhra Pradesh as the principal secretary of the transport department, Mr M.G.V.K. Bhanu, an Assam cadre IAS officer who till recently worked in the Chief Minister’s Office and Mr A.V. Dharma Reddy, an IDES officer who is currently working with TTD and several others.
The government pleader while making his submission regarding the inter cadre deputation of Ms K. Ratnaprabha, told the court that though the Centre had rejected her application for an extension of deputation, she is continuing on the basis of an order of a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Mr S.R. Sunku, counsel for the petitioner told the court that the state is acting in an erratic manner while dealing with the deputations and allowing unconnected persons in important positions.
The judges said: “Place before us the policy you have in this regard. You can consider the requests of the officers if their purpose is to keep them closer to their wives and children. But the departments should not suffer.”
The government pleader told the court that as such there was no policy for the deputations. He said that he will explain their policy regarding IRTS and other Central services.
He submitted that regarding IAS and IPS cases, it is the Centre which has to explain its policy on inter cadre deputations. The bench asked all the concerned to file their affidavits in this matter within four weeks.
AP High Court says land grant to Congress is illegal
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec. 17: The AP High Court on Friday struck down an order issued by the state government directing the AP Housing Board to alienate land to the AP Congress Committee to construct its party office at Bhimraobada besides Gandhibhavan in Hyderabad.
A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and the Justice Ramesh Ranganathan declared the direction of the government as illegal. The bench set side the GO and the subsequent sale deed.
The government had issued GO Ms No 76 on November 25, 2005, directing the AP Housing Board to alienate the land in favour of the Indian National Congress. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed. An NGO, Campaign for Housing and Tenural Rights (CHATRI), through its org-aniser, Mr Jeevan Kumar, filed a public interest litigation challenging the action of the state government.
The petitioner contended that the GO was in violation of the AP Housing Board Act.
He said that the board was formed for the purpose of providing housing acco-mmodation. He argued that area, which was notified as a slum and meant for housing scheme, could not be alienated in favour of a political party at low rate.
The bench said in its 46-page judgement that “the action of the government is contrary to Section 45 and 79(1) of the Act. When a public body exceeds or abuses power vested in it, the court interferes to correct the infraction and it is in larger public interest to set aside it.”
The Justice, Mr Ramesh Ranaganathan, said that the government had no power to direct the housing board to alienate land, it can be given only for the purpose of the Act. The court rejected the contention of the respondents that there was delay in filing writ petition and the petitioner’s action was suspicious.
Hyderabad, Dec. 17: The AP High Court on Friday struck down an order issued by the state government directing the AP Housing Board to alienate land to the AP Congress Committee to construct its party office at Bhimraobada besides Gandhibhavan in Hyderabad.
A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and the Justice Ramesh Ranganathan declared the direction of the government as illegal. The bench set side the GO and the subsequent sale deed.
The government had issued GO Ms No 76 on November 25, 2005, directing the AP Housing Board to alienate the land in favour of the Indian National Congress. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed. An NGO, Campaign for Housing and Tenural Rights (CHATRI), through its org-aniser, Mr Jeevan Kumar, filed a public interest litigation challenging the action of the state government.
The petitioner contended that the GO was in violation of the AP Housing Board Act.
He said that the board was formed for the purpose of providing housing acco-mmodation. He argued that area, which was notified as a slum and meant for housing scheme, could not be alienated in favour of a political party at low rate.
The bench said in its 46-page judgement that “the action of the government is contrary to Section 45 and 79(1) of the Act. When a public body exceeds or abuses power vested in it, the court interferes to correct the infraction and it is in larger public interest to set aside it.”
The Justice, Mr Ramesh Ranaganathan, said that the government had no power to direct the housing board to alienate land, it can be given only for the purpose of the Act. The court rejected the contention of the respondents that there was delay in filing writ petition and the petitioner’s action was suspicious.
Plea against Telangana state dismissed
Hyderabad, Dec 17 : The AP High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest writ petition filed challenging the process to grant statehood to Telangana region declaring that such a petition at this stage was premature.
A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and the Justice Noushad Ali, dealing with the petition filed by Mr C. Narayana, a resident of Anantapur district, praying to declare illegal the process of division of state as long as there was Article 371(D) in the Constitution, Article 3 can not be invoked.
Mr P.V. Krishnaiah, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that Article 371(D) of the Indian Constitution refers to special status to Andhra Pradesh and provisions for equitable opportunities for people from different regions of state.
Mr Ponnam Ashok Goud, assistant solicitor-general, told the court that the process of separation of the state had not commenced.
Mr D.V. Seetharama Murthy, advocate-general, submitted to the court that the issues involved in the petition are not justified.
While rejecting the petition, the court said, “In our opinion, a new state can be formed only as per the procedure prescribed in Article 3 of the Constitution. We cannot presume that the representatives of the citizens in Parliament or the Legislative Assembly would not follow the provisions of Article 3.”
A division bench comprising the Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and the Justice Noushad Ali, dealing with the petition filed by Mr C. Narayana, a resident of Anantapur district, praying to declare illegal the process of division of state as long as there was Article 371(D) in the Constitution, Article 3 can not be invoked.
Mr P.V. Krishnaiah, counsel for the petitioner, told the court that Article 371(D) of the Indian Constitution refers to special status to Andhra Pradesh and provisions for equitable opportunities for people from different regions of state.
Mr Ponnam Ashok Goud, assistant solicitor-general, told the court that the process of separation of the state had not commenced.
Mr D.V. Seetharama Murthy, advocate-general, submitted to the court that the issues involved in the petition are not justified.
While rejecting the petition, the court said, “In our opinion, a new state can be formed only as per the procedure prescribed in Article 3 of the Constitution. We cannot presume that the representatives of the citizens in Parliament or the Legislative Assembly would not follow the provisions of Article 3.”
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
PIL filed on validity of Chidambaram's announcement on seperation of Telangana
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec 15 : A public interest litigation was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday contending that there was no Constitutional validity of a legal effect on the statement made by the Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, to initiate the process of separation of Telangana.
Mr C. Narayana, a resident of Anantapur district, filed the petition contending that since the statement of Mr Chidambaram was based on a decision taken by the core committee of the Congress it would not become a decision of the Union government.
He said that the statement was made by Mr Chidambaram on behalf the Council of Ministers and not based on any resolution passed by the Union Cabinet. He argued that the core committee is not a Constitutional authority and added that the process of formation of a new state will not begin unless a decision of the political parties was conveyed by the Union Cabinet through a resolution and advise to the President of India.
The petitioner complained to the court that the statement has led to major unrest across the state.
He told the court that as long as Article 371-D of the Constitution is in force the Centre had no power to divide Andhra Pradesh under Article 3. Mr Narayana submitted to the court that Article 371-D was incorporated in the Constitution after the separate Telangana agitation in 1969.
He said that based on the Article AP has been divided into six zones. He argued that if at all the Centre has to divide the state it has to amend the Constitution.
Hyderabad, Dec 15 : A public interest litigation was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday contending that there was no Constitutional validity of a legal effect on the statement made by the Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, to initiate the process of separation of Telangana.
Mr C. Narayana, a resident of Anantapur district, filed the petition contending that since the statement of Mr Chidambaram was based on a decision taken by the core committee of the Congress it would not become a decision of the Union government.
He said that the statement was made by Mr Chidambaram on behalf the Council of Ministers and not based on any resolution passed by the Union Cabinet. He argued that the core committee is not a Constitutional authority and added that the process of formation of a new state will not begin unless a decision of the political parties was conveyed by the Union Cabinet through a resolution and advise to the President of India.
The petitioner complained to the court that the statement has led to major unrest across the state.
He told the court that as long as Article 371-D of the Constitution is in force the Centre had no power to divide Andhra Pradesh under Article 3. Mr Narayana submitted to the court that Article 371-D was incorporated in the Constitution after the separate Telangana agitation in 1969.
He said that based on the Article AP has been divided into six zones. He argued that if at all the Centre has to divide the state it has to amend the Constitution.
Markfed told to compete in order to procure pulses
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec. 15: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday asked the state government to direct the AP Markfed to compete with private traders in order to procure pulses in the ensuing season.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy while dealing with a petition filed against skyrocketing prices of pulses particularly red gram in the market suggested the government to intervene in the market through the AP Markfed by competing with private traders in procuring pulses.
The AP Markfed submitted to the court that it would procure red gram from the farmers as per the minimum support price fixed by the government, but it could not pay more than support price offered by the private traders to farmers.
Reacting to the submission the bench told Mr A. Satya Prasad, additional advocate- general that if the Markfed could not procure red gram or other pulses, private traders will grab the stock and it would lead to further rise of prices.
“To avoid such a situation instruct the Markfed to procure pulses from farmers and the government shall fix a retail price with a minimum profit and make it available to the people,’’ the bench advised.
Mr Prasad told the court that Markfed opened stalls across the state to sell red gram at lower prices.
The court suggested that all other pulses could be sold through the Markfed stalls. The court directed the additional advocate-general to file a counter affidavit on the steps taken by the government to procuring the stocks of pulses.
Hyderabad, Dec. 15: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday asked the state government to direct the AP Markfed to compete with private traders in order to procure pulses in the ensuing season.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy while dealing with a petition filed against skyrocketing prices of pulses particularly red gram in the market suggested the government to intervene in the market through the AP Markfed by competing with private traders in procuring pulses.
The AP Markfed submitted to the court that it would procure red gram from the farmers as per the minimum support price fixed by the government, but it could not pay more than support price offered by the private traders to farmers.
Reacting to the submission the bench told Mr A. Satya Prasad, additional advocate- general that if the Markfed could not procure red gram or other pulses, private traders will grab the stock and it would lead to further rise of prices.
“To avoid such a situation instruct the Markfed to procure pulses from farmers and the government shall fix a retail price with a minimum profit and make it available to the people,’’ the bench advised.
Mr Prasad told the court that Markfed opened stalls across the state to sell red gram at lower prices.
The court suggested that all other pulses could be sold through the Markfed stalls. The court directed the additional advocate-general to file a counter affidavit on the steps taken by the government to procuring the stocks of pulses.
AP High Court gives one day to reopen Telangana institutions
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec 15 : A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday granted the state government one day time to report its decision on whether junior, degree colleges and universities in Telangana region can reopen or not.
The bench was dealing with a government appeal against the order of a single judge who had suspended GO MS. No. 856. The government issued the GO on December 3, directing the closure of higher educational institutions in the 10 districts of Telangana in view of the unrest in the region.
Senior Counsel Mr Prakash Reddy appearing for the writ petitioners repeatedly pleaded with the court that there were no untoward incidents in the region justifying the continuation of the closure.
He pointed out that while incidence of consistent violence was being reported from certain regions (Andhra and Rayalaseema) the government had not taken any action. The advocate-general D.V. Seetharamamurthy informed the court that the High Power Committee was yet to take a decision and a decision was underway. The bench told the AG to give wide publicity in case a a decision to open the institutions was taken by Wednesday.
Hyderabad, Dec 15 : A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday granted the state government one day time to report its decision on whether junior, degree colleges and universities in Telangana region can reopen or not.
The bench was dealing with a government appeal against the order of a single judge who had suspended GO MS. No. 856. The government issued the GO on December 3, directing the closure of higher educational institutions in the 10 districts of Telangana in view of the unrest in the region.
Senior Counsel Mr Prakash Reddy appearing for the writ petitioners repeatedly pleaded with the court that there were no untoward incidents in the region justifying the continuation of the closure.
He pointed out that while incidence of consistent violence was being reported from certain regions (Andhra and Rayalaseema) the government had not taken any action. The advocate-general D.V. Seetharamamurthy informed the court that the High Power Committee was yet to take a decision and a decision was underway. The bench told the AG to give wide publicity in case a a decision to open the institutions was taken by Wednesday.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
AP High Court stays Centre’s order for CBI probe into OMC affairs
By S A Ishaqu
Hyderabad, Dec. 14: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday stayed the notification issued by the Centre to conduct a CBI probe into alleged irregularities of the Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd.
Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada dealing with a petition filed by the OMC challenging the notification, directed that no further steps should be taken in pursuance of the notification for six weeks.
Mr Parasaran, senior counsel of Supreme Court arguing on behalf the petitioner contended that the notification was illegal and the offence which was mentioned in the notification like illegal mining and boundary dispute cannot attract provisions of criminal law.
He said there was no reference in the notification that his client has committed any offence which attracts criminal provisions. He argued that without specific reasoning of a criminal offence the Centre cannot direct the CBI to conduct inquiry against his client.
While refuting the contentions of the petitioner’s counsel Mr T. Niranjan Reddy, special public prosecutor told the court that the CBI has the power to investigate directly as per its manual on any offence even in the absence of a notification from the Union government.
He contended that the CBI had gathered reliable information from various sources that the concerned unknown public servants had abused their official position by entering into criminal conspiracy in fixing the location of the mining lease of the OMC. He told the court that the accused company had greedy intentions and stole the valuable mineral ores from the unauthorised area and illegally transported it in violation of various laws.
He said that this information disclosed commission of offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, theft, criminal trespass and dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Mr D.V. Seetharam Murthy, advocate-general argued that if there was any lacuna in the notification it would not be taken into consideration as the state gave its consent based on reliable material proving several irregularities took place in mining by the OMC.
While staying the notification, the judge issued notices to the Centre and state governments and also to the CBI to file their counter affidavits within six weeks and posted the case to January 29.
Hyderabad, Dec. 14: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday stayed the notification issued by the Centre to conduct a CBI probe into alleged irregularities of the Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd.
Justice Gopalakrishna Tamada dealing with a petition filed by the OMC challenging the notification, directed that no further steps should be taken in pursuance of the notification for six weeks.
Mr Parasaran, senior counsel of Supreme Court arguing on behalf the petitioner contended that the notification was illegal and the offence which was mentioned in the notification like illegal mining and boundary dispute cannot attract provisions of criminal law.
He said there was no reference in the notification that his client has committed any offence which attracts criminal provisions. He argued that without specific reasoning of a criminal offence the Centre cannot direct the CBI to conduct inquiry against his client.
While refuting the contentions of the petitioner’s counsel Mr T. Niranjan Reddy, special public prosecutor told the court that the CBI has the power to investigate directly as per its manual on any offence even in the absence of a notification from the Union government.
He contended that the CBI had gathered reliable information from various sources that the concerned unknown public servants had abused their official position by entering into criminal conspiracy in fixing the location of the mining lease of the OMC. He told the court that the accused company had greedy intentions and stole the valuable mineral ores from the unauthorised area and illegally transported it in violation of various laws.
He said that this information disclosed commission of offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, theft, criminal trespass and dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Mr D.V. Seetharam Murthy, advocate-general argued that if there was any lacuna in the notification it would not be taken into consideration as the state gave its consent based on reliable material proving several irregularities took place in mining by the OMC.
While staying the notification, the judge issued notices to the Centre and state governments and also to the CBI to file their counter affidavits within six weeks and posted the case to January 29.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Lawyers clash at AP High Court over Telangana
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec 11:Tension prevailed at the Andhra Pradesh High Court as lawyers on Friday clashed over the formation of a separate Telangana state.
Trouble began after two groups of lawyers entered into an argument over the issue. One group opposed the division of the state, while lawyers from Telangana supported the central government's decision to initiate the process of formation of a separate state.
The high court premises reverberated with slogans of "Jai Telangana" and "Jai Andhra" as rival groups began attacking each other.
A few lawyers were injured. Police intervened to control the situation and closed the gates of the high court to prevent the entry of outsiders.
Lawyers from Telangana region had actively participated in the 11-day agitation for separate state.
Hyderabad, Dec 11:Tension prevailed at the Andhra Pradesh High Court as lawyers on Friday clashed over the formation of a separate Telangana state.
Trouble began after two groups of lawyers entered into an argument over the issue. One group opposed the division of the state, while lawyers from Telangana supported the central government's decision to initiate the process of formation of a separate state.
The high court premises reverberated with slogans of "Jai Telangana" and "Jai Andhra" as rival groups began attacking each other.
A few lawyers were injured. Police intervened to control the situation and closed the gates of the high court to prevent the entry of outsiders.
Lawyers from Telangana region had actively participated in the 11-day agitation for separate state.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
AP High Court refuses to intervene Telangana war
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,Dec. 8: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in the issue of forming a separate Telangana state.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, while dealing with a petition filed by Mr P.V. Krishnaiah, a practising advocate of the High Court, observed that “formation of a state is the combined action of the legislative and the executive.”
The petitioner sought directions from the court to the Centre to positively consider the demand of separate Telangana and also to protect the fundamental rights of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief, Mr K. Chandrasekhar Rao, by providing him food and medicines. He also urged the court to tell Mr Chandrasekhar Rao to withdraw his fast.
While considering whether the petition should be taken up for hearing or not, the court said, “No state can be formed on a writ and only the government of India and the President has the power to either reorganise or form a state.”
Referring to the request on giving a direction to provide food to Mr Chandrasekhar Rao, the bench said, “He (Mr Chandrasekhar Rao) is a wise and mature man. He knows what he is doing.”
The bench further said urged the petitioner to approach MPs to build a majority opinion among them “instead of knocking at the wrong door (the court).” The court directed the registry to number the petition and list the matter for further hearing.
Earlier, the court heard a petition filed by Mr Mohammed Adam, a practising advocate, complaining about the failure of law and order in the state.
The advocate general, Mr D.V. Seetharam Murthy, explained the steps taken to maintain law and order in the state. The court adjourned the matter to December 15 for further hearing.
Hyderabad,Dec. 8: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in the issue of forming a separate Telangana state.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, while dealing with a petition filed by Mr P.V. Krishnaiah, a practising advocate of the High Court, observed that “formation of a state is the combined action of the legislative and the executive.”
The petitioner sought directions from the court to the Centre to positively consider the demand of separate Telangana and also to protect the fundamental rights of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief, Mr K. Chandrasekhar Rao, by providing him food and medicines. He also urged the court to tell Mr Chandrasekhar Rao to withdraw his fast.
While considering whether the petition should be taken up for hearing or not, the court said, “No state can be formed on a writ and only the government of India and the President has the power to either reorganise or form a state.”
Referring to the request on giving a direction to provide food to Mr Chandrasekhar Rao, the bench said, “He (Mr Chandrasekhar Rao) is a wise and mature man. He knows what he is doing.”
The bench further said urged the petitioner to approach MPs to build a majority opinion among them “instead of knocking at the wrong door (the court).” The court directed the registry to number the petition and list the matter for further hearing.
Earlier, the court heard a petition filed by Mr Mohammed Adam, a practising advocate, complaining about the failure of law and order in the state.
The advocate general, Mr D.V. Seetharam Murthy, explained the steps taken to maintain law and order in the state. The court adjourned the matter to December 15 for further hearing.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Centre defends action taken against Obulapuram Mining Company
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec. 5: The Centre on Saturday defended its action to stop mining operations of the Obulapuram Mining Company before the AP High Court.
The assistant solicitor-general, Mr A. Rajasekhar Reddy, while arguing the case before Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, contended that it cannot be said that the Union of India lacks jurisdiction to pass the order to stop mining operations and transportation of the iron ore already mined.
He sought an adjournment by stating that the additional solicitor -general of India would appear in the matter to defend the Centre’s stand. Mr Parasaran, senior counsel of Supreme Court, appearing on behalf of Obulapuram Mining Company contended that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had no jurisdiction to advise the state the measures to be taken on the basis of the report. “In fact, the application for its impleadment is pending before the SC in a case filed by a rival lessee and hence it cannot be taken as warrant by the CEC to proceed with the inquiry into the matter,” he added.
Hyderabad, Dec. 5: The Centre on Saturday defended its action to stop mining operations of the Obulapuram Mining Company before the AP High Court.
The assistant solicitor-general, Mr A. Rajasekhar Reddy, while arguing the case before Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, contended that it cannot be said that the Union of India lacks jurisdiction to pass the order to stop mining operations and transportation of the iron ore already mined.
He sought an adjournment by stating that the additional solicitor -general of India would appear in the matter to defend the Centre’s stand. Mr Parasaran, senior counsel of Supreme Court, appearing on behalf of Obulapuram Mining Company contended that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had no jurisdiction to advise the state the measures to be taken on the basis of the report. “In fact, the application for its impleadment is pending before the SC in a case filed by a rival lessee and hence it cannot be taken as warrant by the CEC to proceed with the inquiry into the matter,” he added.
AP High Court asks why Telangana colleges are shut
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Dec. 5: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Saturday prima facie felt that the government should not have closed the colleges in Telangana region as it would result in giving an edge to students in other regions.
Justice L. Narsimha Reddy was dealing with a petition filed by one Ms K. Deepa and eight others challenging the Government Order Ms. No. 856 issued by the government declaring holidays for the government, aided and private junior, polytechnic, degree and university colleges, including professional colleges, from December 4 to 18 in 10 Telangana districts.
Mr Gandra Mohana Rao, counsel for the petitioner, arguing the case told the court that the decision of the government was totally arbitrary and unreasonable. He contended that the government order had been issued without application of mind and without any material before the government.
He said that there was no alleged unrest necessitating closing of all the colleges in Telangana.
Counsel argued that the government did not have jurisdiction to close the universities as per the provisions of the University Acts.
Mr D.V. Seetharam Murthy, the advocate-general, said as per Section 92 (2) of the AP Education Act, the government had the power to close down educational institutions if the situation warrants.
He contended that the state had the responsibility to maintain law and order and peace. The court asked the advocate-general to get instructions from the government to explain the reasons for the decision to the court by Monday.
Hyderabad, Dec. 5: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Saturday prima facie felt that the government should not have closed the colleges in Telangana region as it would result in giving an edge to students in other regions.
Justice L. Narsimha Reddy was dealing with a petition filed by one Ms K. Deepa and eight others challenging the Government Order Ms. No. 856 issued by the government declaring holidays for the government, aided and private junior, polytechnic, degree and university colleges, including professional colleges, from December 4 to 18 in 10 Telangana districts.
Mr Gandra Mohana Rao, counsel for the petitioner, arguing the case told the court that the decision of the government was totally arbitrary and unreasonable. He contended that the government order had been issued without application of mind and without any material before the government.
He said that there was no alleged unrest necessitating closing of all the colleges in Telangana.
Counsel argued that the government did not have jurisdiction to close the universities as per the provisions of the University Acts.
Mr D.V. Seetharam Murthy, the advocate-general, said as per Section 92 (2) of the AP Education Act, the government had the power to close down educational institutions if the situation warrants.
He contended that the state had the responsibility to maintain law and order and peace. The court asked the advocate-general to get instructions from the government to explain the reasons for the decision to the court by Monday.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Advocate irks High Court for attributing motive to court
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Nov. 30: The Andhra Pradesh High Court was dismayed on Monday over an advocate’s submission when a petition filed by Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) was being heard. OMC was challenging the government’s order restraining it from mining.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy was dealing with the petition. During the course of hearing, counsel appearing for a petitioner who challenged mining lease to OMC submitted that the firm deliberately impleaded the Pollution Control Board as a party in the petition even though it had nothing to do with the case. He said the petitioner was deliberately trying to get the subject matter out of the roster of a single judge of this court and it was a case of “forum shopping.” The bench took serious exception to the submissions of counsel and told him not to attribute motives to the court.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the OMC argued that the government had no power to suspend the loading of material which was lying in the ports for loading. Justice Nagarjuna Reddy asked the advocate-general Mr Seetharam Murthy what power the government had to suspend the activities.
Mr Murthy replied that the government has inherent power and the GO was issued in public interest. He further said that there was a public outcry over OMC’s mining activities. He submitted that there were serious allegations on extraction of iron ore from the disputed area.
The bench said: “If the company is mining in a disputed area, you could have stopped the mining, but how can you stop mining completely in the entire area?”
Hyderabad, Nov. 30: The Andhra Pradesh High Court was dismayed on Monday over an advocate’s submission when a petition filed by Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) was being heard. OMC was challenging the government’s order restraining it from mining.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy was dealing with the petition. During the course of hearing, counsel appearing for a petitioner who challenged mining lease to OMC submitted that the firm deliberately impleaded the Pollution Control Board as a party in the petition even though it had nothing to do with the case. He said the petitioner was deliberately trying to get the subject matter out of the roster of a single judge of this court and it was a case of “forum shopping.” The bench took serious exception to the submissions of counsel and told him not to attribute motives to the court.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the OMC argued that the government had no power to suspend the loading of material which was lying in the ports for loading. Justice Nagarjuna Reddy asked the advocate-general Mr Seetharam Murthy what power the government had to suspend the activities.
Mr Murthy replied that the government has inherent power and the GO was issued in public interest. He further said that there was a public outcry over OMC’s mining activities. He submitted that there were serious allegations on extraction of iron ore from the disputed area.
The bench said: “If the company is mining in a disputed area, you could have stopped the mining, but how can you stop mining completely in the entire area?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)