HC nod sought to consider strike EL

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 28 : The state government sought permission of the AP High Court to allow it to treat the 38-day strike by Seemandhra employees of the AP Secretariat as earned leave.

The government has moved an affidavit urging the court to modify its orders issued in a writ by G. Yadaiah, a social activist, seeking implementation of GO 177 (no work no pay) to deal with the employees’ strike.

The government informed the court that an  unprecedented situation had arisen following the Centre’s decision to bifurcate the state.

The government brought to the notice of the court that in 2012, a miscellaneous application was filed seeking modification of the orders to treat the 42-day strike of Telangana employees as earned leave.

It  submitted that the court consider that plea by modifying its earlier order in the writ petition by allowing  the Group of Ministers to take a decision on the strike period of Telangana employees.

The government urged the court to treat the case similarly in order to avoid discrimination against the employees of the forum.

Harish moves HC against CM Kiran

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 27 : Telangana Rashtra Samiti legislator T. Harish Rao on Tuesday moved the AP High Court against the action of Chief Minister N. Kiran Kumar Reddy in sanctioning of a water scheme to Chittoor district.

The MLA has challenged a GO issued on October 14, 2013 according administrative approval for Rs 4,300 crore for execution of Rs 7,390 crore-worth drinking water supply project. The amount was sanctioned for execution of first phase of the project.

He told the court that at present, the entire Cabinet was divided on regional lines and there is no possibility of securing approval and funds from either the state Cabinet or Assembly for the Chittoor project.

He alleged that, keeping this situation in mind the Chief Minister adopted back-door method for sanction of the project by ignoring mandatory provisions of law, business rules and legislative process.

He contended that the political executive head of the state cannot be allowed to misuse the authority and to splurge public funds contrary to fiscal provisions and the Constitution.

He argued that Kiran Kumar Reddy has taken the decision in view his political future but not in public interest.

The MLA submitted that the managing director of AP Infrastructure Corporation was proceeding to grant the project works to chosen few by calling tenders and to award works, and intending to grant 10 per cent mobilisation advances to successful bidders.

Harish Rao said he made a representation to the chief secretary requesting him not to issue orders contrary to the Budget and Government Business Rules.

The TRS legislator urged the court to stay the GO. He named the Chief Minister as one of the respondents to the petition.

Sr CID babu to appear before HC

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 26 : Justice Ramesh Ranganathan of the AP High Court on Monday summoned the additional director-general of police of the Crime Investigation Department to explain the reasons for not following a court direction.

The judge was dealing with a petition by Kuruva Ramudu, a resident of Banavasi village, Yemmiganur mandal, Kurnool district, seeking a direction to the CID to conduct a probe into the misappropriation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme funds by a former MLA and a former Mandal president and Mandal Parishad development officer and former sarpanch of the village.

The judge had sought a preliminary report from the authorities earlier, and the report disclosed that allegations by the petitioner regarding misuse of funds are substantially true, and that funds were released in the names of students, dead persons, non-existent persons and government employees.

After perusing the preliminary report, the judge felt that “it does not stand to reason that the enquiry being caused into misappropriation of public money should be limited only to those names found mention in the complaint submitted by the petitioner. The head of the CID shall enquire into release and utilisation of funds under the scheme for the village for the preceding two years, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.”

The judge directed the CID chief to file a report after ascertaining whether the persons in whose favour payments were made were eligible for the same, whether they are residents of the village, whether the amounts said to have been paid had, in fact, been paid, and the quantum and extent of misappropriation of funds under the scheme. The judge granted a week's time to the official to file the report.

When the report was placed before the judge on Monday, he found that the report was signed by a subordinate officer instead of the CID chief.

Decision on T writ tomorrow

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 24 : Justice P. Naveen Rao of the AP High Court has pointed out how a writ can be maintainable on bifurcation of AP when the contents of the petition are in public interest.

 

The judge was dealing with a writ by a retired government servant of Visakhapatnam and five grampanchayat sarpanches of Garla mandal, of Srikakulam, aggrieved by the decision of the Centre to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh to carve out a separate Telangana state.

 

D. Suryanarayana, retired employee, Ambati Ambica and four other sarpanches have moved the petition stating that they have filed the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution as the decision of the Centre was volatile of the fundamental rights, guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

 

The judge said the contents of the petition are in public interest and a single judge cannot hear such plea. He recalled the recent observation of the Apex Court that when entertaining petitions at this stage are premature, as the Union government has not given final shape to the bifurcation of AP. The judge said that he will decide on Monday on maintainability of the writ.

From the courts: Report sought on kid’s case

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 23: Justice Ramesh Ranganathan of the AP High Court has directed the principal secretary to the home department to submit a report within a week explaining why action was not taken against an inspector and a constable who assaulted a juvenile in public.

 

The judge was dealing with a plea by the Balala Hakkula Sangham challenging the inaction of the police in taking action against inspector Deva Reddy of Karimnagar for beating a juvenile in public in Jagityla town.

 

The judge found fault with the authorities for not taking action against the police personnel, and said that the postponement of increment of the inspector for one year without effect on future increments and pension goes against Rule 6(12) of the Andhra Pradesh Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Rules, 2003.

 

HC summons PS to Home

 

Justice L. Narasimha Reddy of the AP High Court ordered the presence of principal secretary to home department before the court on Friday in a contempt case to explain the reasons for not implementing the orders of the court. The judge was dealing with a contempt case by M/s. O.S.S. Laboratories Pvt Ltd, seeking action against the authorities under the Contempt of Courts Act for not implementing the orders.

 

According to the petitioner, the Commissioner, Printing, Stationary has placed orders, on the petitioner and two other agencies for supply of Indelible Ink Phails to be used in the election. The petitioner alleged he was to supply 1,75,000 units, but the authorities have accepted 13,000 units.

 

Transfer of Kurnool SP

 

The Hyderabad bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Friday pointed out how the same Police Establishment Board (PEB) which recommends transfers and postings of IPS officers to the state acts as an appellate forum for the aggrieved officers. The bench comprising Justice P. Swaroop Reddy and Ms Ranjana Chowdary was hearing a petition by Kurnool SP Dr K. Raghuram Reddy challenging his transfer from Kurnool to Hyderabad.

 

Additional Advocate General K.G. Krishna Murthy told the tribunal that it was mandatory both in terms of Prakash Singh case judgment and also as per the provisions of the administrative tribunals Act to appeal before the Board. He contended that the tribunals have no jurisdiction to look into the issues of transfers which are in the domain of the state.

Don’t insist on Aadhaar for gas: High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 22: A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the AP High Court on Thursday told the Centre and the gas agencies not to insist on consumers having an Aadhaar card for supply of subsidised LPG cylinders.

The bench was disposing of a writ petition by one T.S.R. Sharma, challenging the action of the oil companies in insisting that consumers have an Aadhaar card if they want to avail of subsidised LPG cylinders.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that collecting data of citizens through biometrics amounts to intruding on the privacy of citizens and it was against the basic principles of law.

He argued that till date the Centre has not made any law mandating that Aadhaar card is compulsory to receive benefits under the subsidy scheme.

The Chief Justice asked assistant solicitor-general Ponnam Ashok Goud under which law the Centre was insisting on Aadhaar cards to extend subsidies to citizens.

Goud pointed out that the petitioner has not made either the ministry of petroleum or the ministry of planning as parties to the petitions.

HC verdict split on striking Andhra Pradesh staff

By S.A. Ishaqui 
Hyderabad, Nov 21 : A division bench of Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice K.C. Bhanu of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Wednesday differed on their verdicts on petitions against the strike of the AP Non Gazetted Officers Association and Seemandhra Secretariat Employees Forum.

The bench was pronouncing its verdict on public interest litigations by V. Ravi Kumar, an advocate, and T. Danaiah, president of the All India BC, OBC Party, seeking declaration of the strike by the APNGOs and Seemandhra Secretariat Forum illegal.

Chief Justice Sengupta said that the plea was maintainable, hence, he passed order on merits of the plea by declaring that the strike was illegal.

He directed the state government to initiate action against the employees who participated in the strike. He directed that the government issue recovery proceedings for the loss caused to it due to the strike and ruled that the loss be recovered from the employees who participated in the strike.

Justice Bhanu differed. He felt that the court cannot decide if the strike was legal or illegal in a plea in which prima facie a motive was involved.

He pointed out that one of the petitioners admittedly had participated in a similar agitation (Telangana agitation) and, in such circumstances, entertaining a plea in the name of public interest cannot be maintained.

3rd judge to decide on split verdict

Wednesday’s split verdict on the APNGOs strike will not be operational till a third judge, to be appointed later, delivers his verdict.

Currently, the government is implementing its no-work-no-pay rule. The strike period in case of the Telangana employees (last year) and APNGOs is being treated as leave.

The employees are being paid salary advance, which will be adjusted against their leaves in future.

The government has never faced a situation wherein it has had to recover the loss to the exchequer caused by the strike, from the striking employees.

It may be relevant to mention that the state government had previously decided to withdraw GO Ms No. 177 to implement the no-work-no-pay rule after the Telangana employees went on strike during the Sakala Janula Samme last year.

The decision to withdraw the GO was challenged before the High Court, which stayed it. In view of the stay, the government is paying salary only as advance and not on regular basis.

Expert panel sought to curb mishaps

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 17 : Jana Vignana Vedika has moved the AP High Court urging to constitute an expert committee, headed by a retired High Court judge, to study the operations of transport systems in the state and to submit a detailed report with suggestions and remedial measures, for enforcing the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, in order to safeguard lives of the passengers.

Jana Vignana Vedika, represented by its state publicity secretary T.V. Rao, fielded a PIL submitting that they are approaching the court in view of the bus accidents at Sholapur in Maharashtra and at Palem in Mahbubnagar district, wherein 32 and 45 passengers of the state were burnt alive.

He said the Karnataka government had issued permit to the private bus involved in the accident at Palem though the bus registration was located in AP.

Rao alleged that the private bus operators are indulging in illegal activities by transporting unaccompanied luggage, including inflammable materials, gelatin sticks and other articles to generate more income.

He urged the court to constitute an expert committee with the officials from the state government, transport department and also public spirited personalities under the chairmanship of a retired High Court judge to study the operations of transport systems.

He prayed that the court would see to that the committee will work under the direct supervision of the High Court.

The petitioner also sought a direction from the court that the authorities must prevent contract carriage vehicles as stage carriages and to stop forthwith carrying unaccompanied luggage in the passenger transport vehicles.

Onus is on petitioner for claiming relief: Andhra Pradesh High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 16 : The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made it clear that the burden was on the petitioner to establish the reasons for the delay and laches in approaching the court seeking relief from it, against the state, for its alleged illegal or wrongful executive action.

Justice P. Naveen Rao was dismissing a petition by Mohd Abdul Khader, seeking a direction to the state government, to pay balance compensation for acquiring 102 acres in Cherlapally, of Ranga Reddy district, in 1966.

Referring to a judgment of the apex court, the judge reiterated that the conduct of the petitioner should not be blameworthy, of the laches, undue delay, acquiescence, and waiver.

Ignoring the delay and laches on the part of a person, claiming the relief, if the relief was granted by the High Court, it was unsustainable as it would amount to not making decision judiciously.

The land of the petitioner was acquired in 1966 at the rate of Rs 2,000 per acre.

Aggrieved by the award, he moved the civil court and the civil court enhanced the rate to Rs 3,500 per acre and then he preferred an appeal before the High Court and the appeal was dismissed. 

Then the petitioner moved the Supreme Court contending that for the neighboring lands compensation at the rate of Rs 2 per square yard was granted, which lands were acquired under the same Gazette notification.

The Apex Court considered his plea and disposed of the petitions holding that there should not be any distinction between the lands covered by the same notification. After that the authorities awarded compensation to him by excluding 1/3rd of the total extent of the land, for the purpose of roads, and common areas. He received compensation under protest in 1993.

In 2006, he moved the High Court by filing a writ stating that he was entitled for the compensation for his total land and the authorities withheld the compensation for 1/3 of the total land. Despite his representation, the authorities refused to pay the balance amount.

The government claimed that 1/3 of the land to be excluded as in any development of land, into a residential or commercial property, certain percentage of land has to be earmarked for roads and common amenities and said portion of land vests in the government.

The government contended that if the petitioner was not satisfied on the compensation, determined by the competent authority, in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court, he ought to have filed Execution Petition before civil court.

The Supreme Court passed the order in 1979 and after lapsing of almost two decades he invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, which cannot be sustainable, the government argued.

Citing the larger bench decision of the AP High Court, in Bhimidipati Annapoorna’s case, the judge said that where the amount of compensation, finally determined was not paid, a person must first resort to the alternate remedy of taking out execution proceedings.

Despite it, if there was delay in paying the compensation, jurisdiction of this court can be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution, the judge added.

Justice Naveen Rao found that the petitioner failed to explain the reasons for not taking the execution proceedings and it was not a case of non-payment of compensation, therefore, the remedy of writ petition was not maintainable.

Salahuddin Ayub gets bail in AP High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 15 : The Andhra Pradesh High Court has suspended the conviction of Mohammed Salah-ddin Ayub, former director of Parkwood International School in Ranga Reddy district and granted him bail.

Ayub was convicted by the Vth additional metropolitan sessions judge on October 11, 2013, and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for raping a girl student of the school.
Ayub was arrested by the police in July 2010 based on a complaint lodged by the victim’s father.

Ayub moved the High Court challenging the order of the trial court contending that the prosecution has failed in proving that he had coerced the girl to undergo an abortion at a private hospital.
He said that the police booked the case against him in July 2010, while the alleged offence was claimed to have been committed in March 2010.

After hearing the appeal Justice Raja Elango suspended the conviction and directed the trial court to release the petitioner on bail till further orders. The judge directed the petitioner to furnish two sureties for Rs 1 lakh and to surrender his passport before the trial court.

The judge also directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court without fail on the first Monday of every month till the completion of  hearing on his appeal.

GHMC can’t tax vacant lands: High Court

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 14 : The Andhra Pradesh  High Court has ruled that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has no right to levy tax on vacant lands other than the land appurtenant to buildings.

A bench comprising Justice G. Rohini and Justice Challa Kodanda Ram declared that levying of tax on vacant lands other than the land appurtenant to the buildings as provided under Section 212 (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was illegal.

K. Rajiv, a resident of Jubilee Hills, moved the court challenging the notice for a tax of Rs 2,44,753 for the vacant land. He told the court that he had applied to the GHMC to construct a house and the permit was given in 2008, and construction completed in 2010. He said GHMC had demanded vacant land tax for 2006-10. Rajiv said there was no provision for vacant land tax in the Act.

The HC directed the GHMC to calculate property tax in the manner explained in the judgement in the Himayatnagar Ratepayers Association vs the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Commissioner case.

of Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. The bench allowed by the petitions by quashing the property tax demands.

Telugu Desam leader told state security not possible

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, Nov 9 : A division bench of the AP High Court comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar on Friday observed that it may not be possible for the government to provide personal security to each and every individual.

The bench dismissed a writ appeal by TD leader Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan challenging the dismissal of his petition by a single judge.

The Telugu Desam leader had approached the court, seeking a direction to the state government to continue his personal security provided earlier.

The single judge had refused to issue an order to the government and upheld the decision of the government to withdraw the security given to the petitioner.

Justice Sengupta said that there was no illegality in the order passed by the single judge.

In a country having a population of 120 crore and a state with a population of 8 crore it would not be possible for the state to extend personal security to each and every person on the cost of the exchequer, Justice Sengupta said.

Citing the assassination of Indira Gandhi, despite having heavy security, the Chief Justice said that there are several other agencies who can extend security to individuals on cost basis.
The bench ruled that the order of the single judge does not warrant interference by it.

Court upholds President power to split AP

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 7: The AP High Court on Wednesday stated that that there was no nexus between Article 371D and Article 3 of the Constitution.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta held that the President can under no circumstances be restrained by any court and not even by Parliament. The court dismissed a public interest litigation opposing the decision of the Centre to bifurcate AP.

Article 371D, a Constitutional amendment, ensures equitable opportunities for people belonging to different regions of the state in the matter of public employment and education. Article 3 deals with the Centre’s power to create new states.

Citing the prayer of petitioner P.V. Krishnaiah, an advocate, to restrain the President from exercising his power under Article 3 of the Constitution, in pursuance of any recommendation made by the Union Cabinet regarding bifurcation of the state, the Chief Justice said, “We think this prayer cannot be entertained by the court at all, as it is an absolute constitutional power of the President, as enshrined in the Constitution.”

The court made it clear that “the President was absolutely free to act in terms of the provisions of Article 3.”

Next: Court can’t give direction on Article 371D, says CJ

In a detailed order, Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta discussed the various contentions of the petitioner as far as Article 371D was concerned. The petitioner argued that as long as the Article is in force, the Union of India has no authority or power under Article 3 of the Constitution to bifurcate the existing state of AP and form proposed new state of Telangana.

Article 371D was introduced by the Centre by amending the Indian Constitution during the formation of Andhra Pradesh state to ensure equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the state in the matter of public employment and education.

The Chief Justice refuted the contention by saying that “according to us, this provision does not have any nexus as to the subject matter of Article 3 of the Constitution, which operates in different field, question of overriding effect or inconsistency as argued does not arise”.

The petitioner contended that in the event the state is bifurcated in exercise of power of Article 3 of the Constitution, then the object as enshrined in Article 371D will be “frustrated and rendered nugatory”.

Answering the above contention, Justice Sengupta said, “We do not find any merit in this submission. We are of the view that the whole object of introducing this Article is to provide safeguard measures in the interest of the region of AP.”

He said on a plain reading of the provision, it appears that the special provision has been made in order to give a special privilege to Andhra Pradesh and it does not transpire that this was intended to give any overriding effect over other provisions of the Constitution.

The Chief Justice held that in the event of bifurcation, ultimately, it was for Parliament to take measures for re framing the same provision with suitable amendment or deleting altogether. He ruled that it was a consequential measure if necessary and it was not for the Court to say.

Elaborating on his opinion, Justice Sengupta said that the powers of the President and all organs of state concerned will certainly look into this matter and it was their anxiety and they will act and no one can presume that the Parliament or the President or state Assembly will act unconstitutionally.

He said that “we are of the view that Article 3 of the Constitution operates in a different field and for different purpose and there is no nexus even remotely with each other. Even they have no quarrel with each other”.

Mentioning the apprehensions of the petitioner, the Chief Justice said, “We think that in which way the Parliament and Union of India have proceeded in the matter cannot be told by anyone and it is for the Centre, then Parliament, President and lastly the state legislature. They can proceed in their own way. The Court cannot give any direction.”

AP to spend Rs 922cr on Musi beautification

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 5: The state government on Monday informed the AP High Court that it had decided to beautify the entire 34-km stretch of the Musi river under the limits of the GHMC at a cost of Rs 922 crore.

Making the submissions on behalf of the government before a division Bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar, special counsel N. Sreedhar Reddy said the GHMC and the HMDA were taking steps to remove encroachments along the banks of the river and also to clean it.

He said the GHMC has submitted a detailed project report to beautify the river and its riverbed and it had been referred to the Centre, the National River Conservation Directorate and the ministry of environment and forest seeking a Central share of funds.

He also submitted that the state government would bear 30 per cent of the total cost. The Bench was dealing with a plea by Hameed Pasha, a resident of the city, challenging the inaction of the authorities in protecting the river.

Explaining the beautification process of the Musi river’s banks, the counsel said that the construction of interception and diversion structures were some of the components of the action plan prepared.

The Bench directed the Hyderabad district Collector to conduct a study along with the officials of HMDA and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, and submit a report regarding where the drainage water was being let into the Musi.

It granted 15 days to the Collector to submit his report indicating the steps which are being taken to overcome leakage of drainage and sewage into the river.

PIL against state’s IT, communication policy

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, Nov 5: A division Bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the AP HC on Monday admitted a PIL challenging the inaction of the state government in monitoring its Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Policy 2010-2015.

Sanjay Chary and B. Ravichandra, residents of the city, filed the PIL urging the court to declare the government’s inaction as illegal.

The state government had announced the first ICT policy in May 1999 followed by the second policy in June 2002, third policy in March 2005 and fourth policy in 2010 for promoting the growth of the Information Technology sector, generation of employment, augmenting the Gross State Domestic Product and for overall socioeconomic development.

The petitioners said that while the government had extended several benefits and concessions through the ICT policies to the IT companies, it had failed to protect the unemployed youth against unceremonious removal by IT companies who compelled them to submit resignations while availing the benefits extended by the government in its ICT Policy.

The petitioners urged the court to direct the government to create a monitoring cell for supervising the ICT Policy with specific directions to receive complaints from the victims of IT companies and check their high-handed  action.

While admitting the PIL, the Bench directed the state government to file a counter affidavit to the allegations in the PIL.