Monday, December 8, 2014

I really appreciate Modi for breaking the myth of the Muslim votebank’

DC | S.A. ISHAQUI
Published Dec 7, 2014, 12:31 pm IST

MIM decides to carry its slogan of “Jai Bheem & Jai Meem” to every part of nation
Asaduddin Owaisi, MIM chief and Hyderabad MP
 Asaduddin Owaisi, MIM chief and Hyderabad MP
Aiming at consolidating Muslim and dalit votes across the country by the next general elections in 2019, the Hyderabad-based All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen has decided to carry its slogan of “Jai Bheem and Jai Meem” to every part of the nation. MIM chief and Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi tells S.A. Ishaqui that during the Maharashtra elections his party succeeded in convincing dalits and Muslims that it’s the absence of their credible representation in the Assembly and in Parliament that has led to their social, economic and political marginalisation.
Maintaining that it is the failure of the so-called secular parties that caused a sharp decline in Muslim representation in Parliament, Mr Owaisi, a barrister by training, said that dalits and Muslims will together expose the tokenism and appeasement by the so-called secularists. MIM’s performance in Maharashtra, where it won two seats, was a just a trailer, he said.
“Our growing popularity has caused panic among the ‘secular parties’ in the country. Instead of introspecting about their downslide, they were finding fault with the Majlis. Our aim is to unite the dalits and Muslims across the country to fight against injustice caused to them by the so-called secular parties and the BJP... If we succeed in consolidating the Muslim vote, instead of allowing their vote and voice to be splintered between the parties they have traditionally voted for, and if we continue to get the support that we are getting from dalits, it’ll be an added factor to change the political scenario of this country by the next general election,” he said.
Excerpts from the interview:

Why didn’t the Majlis make the effort to consolidate the Muslim vote during the United Progressive Alliance government?
The MIM had initiated the effort during the UPA regime, but only only by organising a series of meetings with the leaders of dalits and Muslims in several parts of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Our party contested local body elections in Karnataka and Maharashtra, besides Andhra Pradesh and Telangana during the UPA regime.

Do you consider the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance to be a hardliner government? Is that why the MIM has launched a movement to consolidate dalit-Muslim votes against Mr Modi?
Muslims of this country are well aware of the line of Mr Modi and a true Muslim will never forgive him for the genocide of Gujarati Muslims. I really appreciate
Mr Modi for breaking the myth of the Muslim votebank. The MIM is not targeting anyone; it has initiated the movement for the empowerment of the downtrodden and to strengthen the secular foundation of the nation, which was shaken due to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the genocide of Sikhs in Delhi in 1984, the destruction of the Babri Masjid and the carnage of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002.
Parliamentary democracy is a collective responsibility. On one hand, Mr Modi says something about Muslims and on the other hand one of his Cabinet colleagues calls Muslims “haram-zadas”. Mr Modi’s alma mater is making statements about the construction of a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and about  declaring India a “Hindu rashtra”, but Mr Modi has not uttered a single word against these statements. What kind of attitude is this? On one hand, BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj says all madrasas are centres of terrorism, while on the other hand the Modi government gives Rs 209 crore to madrasas. In my speech on the Union Budget, when I pointed this out, Mr Modi kept quiet and did not answer.

Several Congress leaders, including Sharad Pawar and Digvijay Singh, have been alleging that the BJP and the MIM had a tacit understanding to split the secular vote, not only in Maharashtra, but in other parts of the country as well?
Those are all reckless and baseless allegations. In the Maharashtra elections we contested only 24 seats out of 288 seats and won two. The MIM secured five lakh odd votes out of a total 60 lakh Muslim votes. Where have the remaining 55 lakh votes gone? These did not go to the BJP and the Shiv Sena. Who got these votes, if not the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party? Was the MIM responsible for the debacle of these parties? If I say winning of 282 seats by the BJP alone in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections is a result of a tacit understanding with the so-called secular parties and the BJP, will they agree?

Why is the MIM concentrating on Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, which are considered to be bastions of the champions of secularism — Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Ram Vilas Paswan and Mamata Banerjee?
The MIM surely holds Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav responsible for the Muzzaffarnagar riots; it is a result of the unholy tieup between the Samajwadi Party and the RSS and we will surely expose it. Why has not even a single Muslim candidate put up by his party managed to get elected in the Lok Sabha elections? He also failed to provide reservations to the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh. As far as Mr Paswan is concerned, he has already exposed himself by shaking hands with the BJP and justifying the Gujarat carnage. Ms Banerjee has failed to deliver on the promises made to Muslims.

Are you confident that the MIM will make its mark in Uttar Pradesh after the announcement that Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav are joining hands?
We started our efforts to build our base in Uttar Pradesh prior to the general elections. I have been extensively touring the areas where Muslims and dalits are in considerable numbers. We are trying to convince people about our party’s stand and its prospects. There is an overwhelming response from the public, particularly youngsters from dalit and Muslim communities, as they are looking for a strong political voice. The MIM has set up offices in 18 districts of Uttar Pradesh and we will fight for Muslims and dalit rights there. We have to think about Bihar in view of the Nitish-Lalu combination, but I am sure that our party will create a base in Uttar Pradesh.

So, MIM is focusing only on unification of the dalit and Muslim votes?
Not really. Because the problems faced by dalits and Muslims are more or less similar, so initially we thought of going together. The MIM always had a larger perspective and wants to take everybody along in the coming days.

Is there any chance of MIM joining hands with the Lalu-Mulayam jodi as they are claiming that they are uniting to fight against Mr Modi?
No, never. Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and other so-called secularists are playing the old politics of 1970. Now it is 2014 and people’s perceptions have changed. Young people, who constitute 65 per cent of the population of this country, are seeking new politics and fresh ideas.

After the Maharashtra results, most of your well-wishers describe you as a future Prime Minister.
It’s rubbish. Asaduddin Owaisi will remain a servant to the weaker sections of this country. I don’t have any such ambition. Whoever thinks on those lines, surely is not my well-wisher.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Andhra Pradesh delays land allotment for new High Court

DC | S.A. ISHAQUI
Published Nov 17, 2014, 12:23 pm IST

Only after new capital comes up will a new High Court be constructed for AP
Hyderabad High Court
 Hyderabad High Court
HyderabadThe long pending dream of Telanganites to have a separate High Court for their state will likely be delayed as the Andhra Pradesh government is yet to provide suitable accommodation to set up the court.
 
The Telangana state government, which has been pressurising the Centre for immediate bifurcation of the common High Court, has offered for re-location of the Hyderabad High Court to a place outside the existing building and facilitate function of the AP High Court from the existing building.
 
The High Court judiciary has already asked the AP government to provide accommodation to set up the court. However, the AP Cabinet, has categorically indicated that the new High Court would be constructed in the new capital city once it came up.
 
Legal luminaries are of the opinion that as per the Act, Hyderabad can continue as a common capital for a period of 10 years, till the construction of the new capital for the AP. 
 
Mr Sarsani Satyam Reddy, senior counsel of the High Court and leader of the Telangana Advocates Joint Action Committee said that Article 214 of the Constitution mandates that there should be a separate High Court for each state.
 
He said, “In support of the argument of division it is also stated that hypothetically there can never be a separate High Court for the State of AP if it is not constituted and that would defeat the very object of division of the state.”
 
Citing the other reasons for establishment of two separate High Courts, Mr Reddy said, “If two courts are established, each will cater to nearly five crore of people, which is higher than at least 14 states where there are separate High Courts.” 
 
Referring to the pendency of cases at these two High Courts, he said both courts would be in the 13th and 14th position approximately in pendency of cases. As of now, the Hyderabad High Court has 2,32,459 pending cases.
 
Claiming that Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Gujarat, Kar-nataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Bihar and Rajasthan had more pending cases than AP, he pointed out that continuation of a common High Court was without justification and its further continuation would send wrong signals.
 
He added that for more than five months’ recruitment, transfers, postings and promotions of judicial officers and staff had been kept on hold and benefit of 60 years age for superannuation for AP employees was denied to judicial employees while others were getting the benefit.
 
He maintained that if two courts were constituted, one of the senior judges from both the High Courts would have the opportunity of being elevated as Chief Justice and further elevation to Supreme Court.
 
He said the magnanimity with which the chief minister had offered to shift the High Court of Telangana should be accepted immediately and the division of High Court should be done at the earliest.
 
Several judicial officers, however, differ with the argument of Mr Satyam Reddy for relocation of the Telangana High Court and allowing functioning of the Andhra Pradesh High Court from the existing building.
 
Telangana Bill for common HC till AP gets its own HC:
 
Section 30 of AP Reorganisation Act stipulated that on and from the Appointed Day, June 2, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad would be the common High Court for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh till a separate High Court for AP was constituted under Article 214 of the Constitution read with Section 31 of the Act 2014.
 
As per Section 31 of the Act, there would be a separate High Court for AP and once it was constituted, the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad would become the High Court for Telangana and would be known as High Court at Hyderabad. 
 
The relevant Section further states that the principal seat of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh would be at such place as the President may notify. Several judicial officers said that the Constitution did not allow the principal seat of the High Court of a respective state to be outside the state.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Telangana, Andhra Pradesh stand sought on tuition fee

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, July 9: The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday sought to know the stand of the governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh on the plea challenging the action of the management of private colleges in demanding payment of tuition fee of about Rs 92,500 each for sixth year (internship) for Pharma D course.
While dealing with the plea by K. Mallesh and several other students of Pharma D course, Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao directed both the governments to file their affidavits on the averments of the plea within four weeks.
The judge directed the college managements to not insist on payment of fee from the petitioner students and to allow them for viva exam.
The petitioners submitted that collection of tuition fees for the sixth year course (internship period) was not permissible in accordance with the proceedings issued by the AP State Council for Higher Education on January 28, 2014.
They said that as many as 350 students of sixth year Pharma D course were getting affected by the decision of college managements of not permitting them to attend the viva exam to complete the course.

Telangana, Andhra Pradesh stand sought on tuition fee

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, July 9: The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday sought to know the stand of the governments of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh on the plea challenging the action of the management of private colleges in demanding payment of tuition fee of about Rs 92,500 each for sixth year (internship) for Pharma D course.
While dealing with the plea by K. Mallesh and several other students of Pharma D course, Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao directed both the governments to file their affidavits on the averments of the plea within four weeks.
The judge directed the college managements to not insist on payment of fee from the petitioner students and to allow them for viva exam.
The petitioners submitted that collection of tuition fees for the sixth year course (internship period) was not permissible in accordance with the proceedings issued by the AP State Council for Higher Education on January 28, 2014.
They said that as many as 350 students of sixth year Pharma D course were getting affected by the decision of college managements of not permitting them to attend the viva exam to complete the course.

Police officers' move on Million March mob justified

By S A ishaqui
Hyderabad,July 9: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the Hyderabad High Court, has held former DGP K. Aravinda Rao, former city police commissioner A.K. Khan and other police officers not guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The Bench dismissed a contempt case moved by Telangana Advocates Joint Action Committee leader T. Sri Ranga Rao and others, against former the DGP, former city police commissioner, former DCP of Central Zone Akun Sabarwal, former ACP of Chikkadpally K. Chakrapani and Gandhinagar police Inspector S. Sudhakar.
The petitioners contended that the respondent officers were guilty of gross contempt of the order of the Supreme Court in the D.K. Basu versus the state of West Bengal case and urged the court that they be punished under Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The petitioners submitted that the police arrested them while they were participating in the Million March organised on March 10, 2011, in Hyderabad and at the time of their arrest, none of the police officers were wearing name tags and that some of them were in mufti.
They alleged that no arrest memo was prepared and no one was informed of their arrest and their arrest was never recorded on that day and that they were interrogated in Gandhinagar police station.
The petitioners said that they were not given any food or water during the night and they were made to sit on the dirty floor along with others throughout the night.
They said the DGP issued a fax message on February 21, 2011, to all police officers in the state to file FIRs against all the leaders who were supporting the agitation for a separate Telangana.
Police defended their action stating a group of 2,500 to 3,000 people, including the petitioners, had entered the stretch of the upper Tank Bund road from Ambedkar statue side breaking the police cordon, while the other group of 2,500 to 3,000 persons entered the road from the Viceroy Hotel side. They then damaged Telugu heritage idols.
Delivering the verdict, Justice Sanjay Kumar said that though various allegations have been made by the petitioners charging the respondent police officers with responsibility for alleged disobedience to the order of the Supreme Court in the D.K. Basu case, this Court finds no evidence to support their allegation that the named respondents were guilty of any specific violation of the directives of the Supreme Court.
The judge ruled that “this Court therefore finds that the ingredients of ‘civil contempt’ as defined by Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 are not established as against any of the named respondents.”

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

Hyderabad High Court covers Telangana and Andhra Pradesh: Centre

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, July 8 :  The Union of India on Monday submitted before the Hyderabad High Court that the common High Court which had came into existence on June 2, 2014, had absolute jurisdiction on Telangana and the residuary state of the Andhra Pradesh till the constitution of a separate High Court for AP.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a contempt case in which a single judge had earlier sought clarification from the Centre on the jurisdiction of the common High Court.

Hyderabad High Court declined stay summons of ED in Coal scam

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, July 8: Justice Naveen Rao of the Hyderabad High Court on Monday declined to stay the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate to Navabharat Power Private Ltd. and its promoters P. Trivikrama Prasad and Y. Harish Chandra Prasad in the Coal Block allotment scam.
The promoters of the Navabharat Company moved a petition before the judge seeking a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the summons issued by the ED under the prevention of the Money Laundering Act.
The counsel for the petitioners apprehended that the ED may go ahead with coercive steps by attaching the properties based on the summons issued under the PMLA Act. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, counsel for the ED, told the court that the Supreme Court has been monitoring the case and they have not launched any attachment proceedings against the petitioner or his company, which was allotted a coal block.
They were only summoned to answer certain queries on July 9.
While noting that that only summons were issued to promoters to appear before the ED to answer certain queries and attachment of properties at this stage is only an apprehension and courts will not act on such anticipated claims and unfounded fears, Justice Naveen Rao adjourned the case to July 10.

Hyderabad High Court grants status quo on APNGOs land

By S A ishaqui
Hyderabad, July 8: Justice Vilas Afzulpurkar of the Hyderabad High Court, on Monday, directed the Telangana government to maintain status quo on the land allotted to the APNGO Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. in Ranga Reddy district.
The judge was dealing with a petition by the APNGOs Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., represented by its secretary N. Chandrasekhar Reddy, challenging the action of the Telangana government in resuming the land allotted to the society on the ground of non-utilisation of the land granted for the purpose.
The petitioner urged the court to set aside the action of the government. The government pleader brought to the notice of the court that the notices intimating the proposal to resume the land was issued in 2013 and acknowledgment is there.
While directing the government and the petitioner society to maintain status quo, the judge directed the respondents to file the counter affidavits on the averments of the plea and adjourned the case for four weeks.




Saturday, July 5, 2014

Telangana proposed decision may fail legal test :Telangana to formulate a policy for the benefit of its own people

By S A Ishaqui
Picture for representational purpose  (Photo: DC archives)
Hyderabad, July 5 : The proposed decision of the Telangana government to take 1956 as the cut off to determine the local status of students to extend the fee reimbursement scheme may not stand judicial scrutiny.
As per the provisions of the Constitution, it is for Parliament to decide the local status of a person and not state governments.
In the case of Yogesh Bhardwaj versus the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that “Parliament is empowered to make the law prescribing residential requirements within a state or Union Territory in relation to a class or classes of employment. In absence of Parliamentary law, even the prescription of requirement as to residence within the state is a taboo.”
The Telangana government has been claiming that the fee reimbursement scheme is a state government policy that benefits students of lower income groups and is not based on caste and religion. Therefore, the state has the power to decide to whom the benefit should be extended to.
It has also claimed that the decision of taking the year 1956 as a benchmark to determine the local status of a student is only confined to the fee reimbursement scheme and it will not be applicable for employment and admissions into colleges.
Legal experts, however, say that the government cannot adopt two policies, one for admissions and another for fee reimbursement.
Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the state. It reinforces that guarantee by prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth and residence or any of them.
The Rajasthan government had decided to give priority to rural students for admissions into medical courses by giving them bonus marks. The SC held that measures taken by the state on considerations of localism are not sanctioned by the constitutional mandate of equality.
Similarly, a maiden effort of the Jharkhand government, after its formation, to determine the local status of persons by taking into consideration the stay of three generations in a particular district to consider local status went against the government in judicial scrutiny.
A five-member Bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that whatever be the other considerations, no state can be permitted to exclude from the definition of “local resident” (for any purpose whatsoever) any such person who, being a citizen of India, has set up residence in any part or territory of such state, notwithstanding the fact that the period for which the residence has been set up is shorter as compared to the natives, originals or the aboriginals.
In one case, the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Bhagwati, had underscored the need for evolving a policy of ensuring admissions into MBBS courses on an all-India basis “based as it is on the postulate that India is one nation and every citizen of India is entitled to have equal opportunity for education and advancement.”
Telangana’s stand: Fee reimbursement is state government policy, therefore, Telangana has the power to decide who should benefit. Telangana state has also said the nativity clause will be applicable only for this scheme.
However: Legal experts say state cannot adopt two policies, one for admission and another for fee reimbursement. Similar attempts by other state governments were also struck down in the past

Gandra Mohan Rao (left) and S. Ramachandra Rao  (Photo: DC)

Hyderabad: State has power to determine status
“It is the prerogative of the state to formulate a policy for the benefit of its own people. While formulating the policy, the state government is empowered to fix certain criteria to extend the benefit to people who deserve it,” said Gandra Mohan Rao, a Hyderabad High Court advocate.
He said after the  merger of Telangana with AP, and after Hyderabad was made the capital, several people migrated from Andhra and Rayalaseema to the city. 
“Since Telangana has now been separated there is no meaning in extending this benefit to the people who have settled here by virtue of their employment or businesses. It is for the AP  government to take care of them,” he  added.
Mr Rao said, “The fee reimbursement scheme is state-sponsored. The Centre has  nothing to do with it. The state government has every right to decide who the beneficiaries of the scheme are.”
“The state government  has categorically said 1956 is the cut off year only for the fee reimbursement, not for any other purpose. If any one wants to put this up for judicial scrutiny, let them do it,” Mr Rao said.
He is of the opinion that courts have limited jurisdiction in matters concerned with   policy decisions of the state governments. “The Constitution has empowered state governments to make their own policies for the welfare of their people,” he said.


Thursday, July 3, 2014

Put Nagarjuna on notice, High Court tells Telangana

By S A Ishaqui
Actor Akkineni Nagarjuna. (Photo: DC/File)

Hyderabad, July 3 : Justice A. Rajasekhar Reddy of the Hyderabad High Court on Wednesday directed the Telangana state government to issue notice before initiating action against the N Convention centre owned by noted Telugu film actor Akkineni Nagarjuna at Madhapur.
The judge was disposing of two petitions by Nagarjuna and another, challenging the action of the authorities in fixing the full Tank Level of the Thammidi Kunta Lake adjacent to their land, without prior notice.
Following the direction, GHMC commissioner Somesh Kumar said that N Convention Centre would receive the notice “very shortly”.
The judge pointed out that the present petitions were filed on the premise that FTL was already fixed and the authorities are proceeding to take action without notice to the petitioners. The judge said that the advocate-general had submitted that no FTL was fixed as on today and notice will be issued as per law as and when the FTL is fixed.
“The fixing of FTL need not be adjudicated in the present writ petitions.” he said.
 

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Enforcement Directorate says no to Tech Mahindra petition

By S A Ishaqui 
Tech Mahindra   (Photo: DC archives)
Hyderabad, July 2 : The Enforcement Directorate on Tuesday opposed a plea by Tech Mahindra seeking the Hyderabad High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the latter in a lower court with regard to the Satyam Computers scam.
Justice Naveen Rao was hearing the plea of the company. P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, counsel for the enforcement directorate, said that a case against Satyam Computers (now merged with Tech Mahindra) was registered in 2009 by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act.
He said the trial will be conducted only against the old management of Satyam. He said as the scheme of amalgamation of Satyam and Tech Mahindra was approved by the High Court, it was mandatory for the new company to obey the conditions and cooperate for the trial.

Hyderabad High Court seeks Centre’s views on heatwave as calamity

By S A Ishaqui
Picture for representational purpose (Photo: DC)
Hyderabad,July 2 : A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the Hyderabad High Court on Monday directed the assistant solicitor general to file a counter affidavit on a plea by J.K. Raju, an advocate of the seeking a direction to consider the ‘heatwave calamity’ as a disaster and extend financial assistance to the victims’ families with retrospective effect under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Vishnuvardhan Reddy, assistant solicitor general, submitted that following an earlier direction of this court the Centre has passed a detailed order on the representation of the petitioner. He said that 13th Finance Commission has made certain recommendations with regard to heatwave calamity.
Reacting to his submissions, the bench said that all those aspects to be put into an affidavit and submit before it by the next date of hearing.
The petitioner said that as many as 371 people have died due to sunstroke during this summer in the state of Andhra Pradesh due to severe heat conditions.

Amway can operate accounts: High Court

By S A Ishaqui
Arrested Amway CEO and MD William S. Pinckney. (Photo: DC/File)
Hyderabad,July 2: Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao of the Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday granted permission to Amway India Ltd to operate 50 per cent of the amount from its bank accounts in the state.
While admitting a writ petition filed by the company questioning an order of the superintendent of police, Kurnool, directing seizure of all bank accounts of the company, the judge granted the interim relief. The company contended that since the investigation against the company was handed over to the CB-CID, the superintendent of police had no power to issue the proceedings to seize its bank accounts.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Anti-Corruption Bureau files booze charges against former excise minister


By S A Ishaqui
Mopidevi Venkataramana (Photo: DC archives)

Hyderabad July 1: After the intervention of the High Court, sleuths of the Anti-Corruption Bureau finally filed a charge sheet against former excise minister Mopidevi Venkataramana, the brother of former PCC president Botsa Satyanarayana and the son of former minister Dharmana Prasad Rao.
The Anti-Corruption Bureaus of AP and Telangana submitted their action taken reports in the liquor syndicates scam on Monday. The ACB claimed that the allegation that former excise minister Mopidevi Venkataramana accepted `10 lakh as bribe was proved during the investigation.
Mr Ravi Kiran Rao, the special counsel for ACB, submitted before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar that after the setting aside of the memo issued to bar the initiation of cases against public representatives, the ACB re-investigated the cases, and filed charge sheets against public representatives.
According to the report the AP wing of ACB filed charge sheets against Dharmana Ram Manohar Naidu, son of former minister Dharmana Prasad Rao, and P. Appa Rao, the personal assistant of Prasad Rao and C. Venkata Satyanarayana and Chinna Appalanaidu, a corporator of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation at the Visakhapatnam ACB court. The sleuths of the AP wing of ACB submitted before court that the charges against MLA Velagapudi Ramakrishna was not proved in the probe and he was discharged from the case.
The AP wing also filed a charge sheet against Botsa Adinarayana alias Seshu in Visakhapatnam ACB court and a charge sheet in Kurnool against former MLA Y. Chenna Kesava Reddy. The sleuths of Telangana submitted that they have filed a charge sheet against former excise minister Mopidevi Venkata Ramana in Hyderabad ACB court. They said that allegations against MLAs B. Kavitha and Sandra Venkata Veeraiah were not proved in the investigations.
The ACB submitted that charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act were farmed against all the accused. Referring to another direction of the High Court that sanctions pending against public servants should be cleared within three months by the government, P. Venugopal, the advocate general of AP, submitted that as the state was bifurcated, three months is needed to proceed in the matter. The bench considered and granted adjournment accordingly.
 

Andhra Pradesh High Court: States can’t waive farmer loans ;Chief Justice: Court won’t hear case now

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, July 1 : The Hyderabad High Court on Monday made it clear that neither the AP nor the Telangana state governments had the power to waive the loans that farmers had borrowed from banks.
The court, however, said that it would not intervene in the issue at this stage as it was premature. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar was dealing with a plea by Mr Adusumilli Jayaprakash, former TD MLA of Vijayawada, seeking a direction to the Telangana and AP governments not to proceed further with the waiver of agricultural loans availed from banks.
Mr M.V. Durga Prasad, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in AP, the TD had promised total waiver of loans not only to farmers, but also loans to self-help women’s groups.
The TRS, has promised waiver of farmer loans of up to Rs 1 lakh. He said after coming to power, AP issued GO Ms. No. 31, on June 10 to appoint an expert committee, stating that it desired to waive agricultural crop loans given to farmers, women’s self help groups and hand loom and power loom weavers.

Chief Justice: Court won’t hear case now

Petitioner Adusumilli Jayaprakash, former TD MLA of Vijayawada, submitted in the Hyderabad High Court that the Chief Minister of Telangana had announced on the floor of the Assembly that his government would waive all crop loans up to Rs 1 lakh including those secured by pledging gold.
Reacting to the submissions, the Chief Justice said that the state governments had no role in waiver of the loans as it was a transaction between the bank and the borrower; however the court was not inclined to intervene in the matter as the Chief Minister of Telangana had made an announcement on the floor of the Assembly and as a matter of discipline, the courts did not intervene in matters when they were related to announcements either in Parliament or in the Assembly.
As far as the AP issue is concerned, it had issued a GO to work out the modalities for the loan waiver scheme and it is yet to take a final decision. Only when both the states come to a final decision can the court look into the matter, the Chief Justice added.
Counsel for the petitioner said that the impact of the loan waiver scheme was estimated at Rs 54,000 crore in AP and Rs 20,000 crore in Telangana. He contended that the state government did have the power to waive bank loans and it purely rested with the Union of India as per the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
The Chief Justice said that all these aspects would be looked into when the promises of both the governments would transform into a final decision. He added that the court would not hear the case at this stage and if the petitioner could argue on the maintainability of the plea, the court would give him an opportunity to do so. Following this the petitioner sought adjournment of the case to next Monday.

High Court respite for Akkineni Nagarjuna, status quo on N-Convention

By S A Ishaqui

Akkineni Nagarjuna (Photo: DC/File)

Hyderabad, July 1: Justice A. Rajasekhar Reddy of the Hyderabad High Court on Monday granted respite to actor Akkineni Nagarjuna by directing officials of the GHMC, revenue and irrigation departments to maintain status quo with regard to the N-Convention issue till Thursday.
Nagarjuna had challenged the action of the authorities in fixing Full Tank Level near his N-Convention in Madhapur. It may be recalled that the irrigation and revenue departments had surveyed the area around the convention centre to check whether the management had occupied any of the land of the tank.
The petitioner contended that the authorities conducted the survey without issuing him a notice and hence the survey was illegal. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate-General of Telangana, submitted that the notice should be given at the time of action. However, the case was listed for hearing on Tuesday.
States: 

Friday, June 27, 2014

Tech Mahindra moves Hyderabad High Court, challenges Satyam megistrate’s competence

By S A Ishaqui

Anand Mahindra listens to a question during a press conference in Hyderabad (Photo: AFP / File)
Hyderabad, June 27: Tech Mahindra Ltd on Thursday moved the Hyderabad High Court challenging the competence and jurisdiction of the 21st additional chief metropolitan magistrate court in trying the case of Satyam Computers scam under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) Act.
The company contended that the 21st additional chief metropolitan magistrate court is not session’s court and the judicial officer who is heading the court is in the rank of assistant session’s judge cadre and he is not competent to try the case as per Section 43 of the Act.
The company challenged a GO issued by the state government. The Centre and the state government has notified the court as competent in view of the direction of the Supreme Court in Satyam Computers scam case that the case has to be tried by the existing court till completion of the trial and the present judge also not be transferred till then.
When the plea came up for hearing before Justice P. Naveen Rao, he pointed out that the petitioners have challenged a non legislative order and as per the roaster his court has no jurisdiction to deal with non–legislative orders. The petitioner company urged the judge to adjourn the matter for Friday.

Opening of wine shops stayed in Khammam district

By S A Ishaqui

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Notice before demolition must: High Court


By S A Ishaqui 
Hyderabad, June 25: Justice Ramesh Ranganathan of the Hyderabad HC on Tuesday directed the GHMC authorities to issue notices to the owners before demolishing alleged illegal structures in Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust land at Madhapur.
The judge was dealing lunch motions filed by several property owners who were worried that their properties in the Ayyappa Society too may be demolished. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the GHMC authorities took up a massive demolition drive without prior notice.
However, the counsel for the GHMC said that the authorities are only taking steps against unauthorised structures, and they have not touched the structures of the petitioners. The judge directed GHMC to follow the due procedure before taking up the demolition.
Meanwhile, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the High Court is not inclined to take up the issues suo moto. The GHMC authorities started demolishing the structures on Tuesday after a review meeting by Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao on Monday regarding protection of the Gurukul Trust lands.
P.V. Krishnaiah, a practising advocate of the High Court, urged the Chief Justice to take up the case suo motto. The CJ, expressing his disinclination to take up the matter suo motto, told the advocate if he files the petition then he will examine the matter.

Notice before demolition must: High Court

Hyderabad, June 25: Justice Ramesh Ranganathan of the Hyderabad HC on Tuesday directed the GHMC authorities to issue notices to the owners before demolishing alleged illegal structures in Gurukul Ghatkesar Trust land at Madhapur.
The judge was dealing lunch motions filed by several property owners who were worried that their properties in the Ayyappa Society too may be demolished. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the GHMC authorities took up a massive demolition drive without prior notice.
However, the counsel for the GHMC said that the authorities are only taking steps against unauthorised structures, and they have not touched the structures of the petitioners. The judge directed GHMC to follow the due procedure before taking up the demolition.
Meanwhile, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the High Court is not inclined to take up the issues suo moto. The GHMC authorities started demolishing the structures on Tuesday after a review meeting by Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao on Monday regarding protection of the Gurukul Trust lands.
P.V. Krishnaiah, a practising advocate of the High Court, urged the Chief Justice to take up the case suo motto. The CJ, expressing his disinclination to take up the matter suo motto, told the advocate if he files the petition then he will examine the matter.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Power firm directed to consider staff plea

By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, June 24: The Hyderabad High Court has directed the Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL), formerly the Central Power Distribution Company Limited, to consider the plea of its employees to exercise their options in statutory terms and eventually the authorities shall consider their cases at the time of permanent allotment, without reference to their provisional allotment.
While disposing off a petition by the TGSPDCL employees, Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu made it clear that for the purpose of transition, if any employee was assigned any task provisionally either by way of transfer or deputation or in whatever other manner, it shall not be to his or her prejudice at the time of final allocation of the work force.
The petitioners challenged an order issued on May 31, 2014, provisionally allotting their services to the Southern Power Distribution Company of AP contending that their allocation was illegal and arbitrary, apart from being violative of the provisions of the AP Reorganisation Act of 2014.
G. Vidyasgar Rao, senior counsel for the petitioners, argued that according to Section 77 of the Act, on and from the Appointed Date the employees working in the posts situated within the territorial state of Telangana including those working in the state public sector corporation, shall continue to serve provisionally within the territorial limits of the said state.
He said that so far no guidelines have been issu-ed in terms of Section 82 of the Act to effect any allocation. The counsel for the respondent company said, in view of the bifurcation of the APCPDCL, owing territorial compulsions in the wake of the division of the erstwhile unified state, it was incumbent on the government to relocate some of the staff working in the corporate offices falling within the territory of the new state, for half of the company gets merged with another entity.
The judge observed: “The division of a state, or in other words, birth of a state, is neither a routine nor a mundane matter of the state affairs. Demar-cation of a territory may be straight forward, but the division of administrative machinery is rather complex.”

High Court bench dismisses PIL filed against Hyderabad Cricket Association, fines petitioner


By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad,June 24: A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar of the AP High Court on Monday dismissed a PIL seeking CBI probe into alleged irregularities in the Hyderabad Cricket Association. The Bench also imposed a fine of Rs 1,000 on the petitioner towards costs.
M. Mahesh Yadav, social activist of Medak district, had moved the plea alleging that the HCA had violated the rules and regulations while deciding the accounts, resulting in huge loss to public money.
He brought to the notice of the court that an inquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau also revealed several irregularities in purchase of various equipment, land and award of contracts. The petitioner said he had represented the authorities seeking action against persons responsible for the irregularities, but no action was taken on his representations till date. He urged the court to set up an independent committee to look into the affairs of the HCA.
The Bench recalled that the High Court had earlier passed an order holding that the office bearers of the HCA do not fall under the purview of public servants, hence the prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked against them. The Bench directed the petitioner to pay costs for wasting the Court’s time.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

HC questions cops for inaction on Red Sanders smuggler


Hyderabad High Court   (Photo: DC archives)

By S A Ishaqui

Hyderabad, June 21: Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao of the Hyderabad High Court on Friday found fault with the Kurnool police for its failure to declare alleged red sanders smuggler Kollam Gangi Reddy a proclaimed offender.
The judge was dealing with a plea by the Kurnool district police seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Gangi Reddy in a red sanders smuggling case. Gangi Reddy also happens to be an accused in the criminal assault on Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu at Alipiri in 2003.
The counsel for the public prosecutor informed the court that after obtaining bail from the High Court on May 15, 2014, the accused is believed to have fled to Dubai on May 18. The notice of bail cancellation was served to his wife.
In response, the judge demanded to know why the police had failed to initiate steps to declare the accused as a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code when they had information about the absconding accused.
The judge posted the next hearing to July 7 after the counsel sought time.

High Court seeks clarity on jurisdiction over Andhra Pradesh

By S A Ishaqui
AP High Court. (Photo: DC/File)

Hyderabad, June 21: Certain provisions of the AP Reorganisation Bill, 2014, have left the judges of the Hyderabad High Court in a dilemma while dealing with cases pertaining to Andhra Pradesh.
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy on Friday asked the Union of India, ministry of law and ministry of home to clarify whether the existing judges of the common High Court had power to deal with cases pertaining to Andhra Pradesh.
While dealing with a contempt case, the judge pointed out that Section 30 of the AP Reorganisation Act directed that on and from the Appointed Day, which is notified by the President of India on June 2, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad would be the common High Court for both the states till a separate High Court for the state of AP was formed under Article 214 of the Constitution read with Section 31 of the Act.
The judge said that prima facie, Parliament had decided to constitute a separate High Court for AP through Sections 31 and 32 of the Act. The seat of the High Court for the state of AP was left to be notified under Section 31 and the allocation of judges for functioning in the High Court of AP from the date determined by the President of India was to be done under Section 32 of the Act.