Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a husband to have his wife back in his matrimonial home. The Cupid-stricken spouse moved the High Court with a habeas corpus petition against his father-in-law, saying that his wife is a victim of kidnapping by her own father since the latter didn’t approve of the marriage. Advocate-General contended that the wife had stated that she had returned to her parents on her own. She said that she took the decision to go with the petitioner with an immature mind; now having realised it, she had returned on her own. The panel, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Tukaramji, which heard the matter, held in-camera proceedings in the later part of the day. It recorded the statement of the woman and found that she was not in illegal detention and accordingly disposed of the petition.
Genco tender process to go on
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict the tender process initiated by the Telangana State Generation Corporation (Genco). An aspiring bidder, Ch. Kishore Kumar, challenged the tender and sought a direction that he be permitted to participate in the bid for transportation of 42 lakh metric tonnes of coal of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL) to the BTPS coal yard by road. According to the petitioner, he issued an e-tender notice but there was a technical online glitch at the time of submitting his bid and the help desk concerned was unable to resolve the issue. Earlier, a representation of the petitioner was not considered; he moved to the High Court. The authorities were directed to consider his representation. The authorities rejected the plea for postponement on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit his bid on schedule. Justice Nanda saw no reason to interfere with the tender process. She said “This court opines that mandamus exists when the petitioner has an existing legal right and the same is infringed arbitrarily by an authority but in the present case it is borne on record that the petitioner is seeking acceptance of his bid by the respondents physically in a sealed cover or through online having failed to upload the bid within schedule closing date and time” which she said was not arbitrary. Justice Nanda added, “if the decision relating to the award of the contract is bonafide and in the public interest the courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice toward tenderer is made out. The power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or decide contractual disputes.”
HC to examine denial of promotion
The Telangana High Court will examine the legality of the actions of Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL) in declining the promotion of an assistant engineer due to pending criminal proceedings. Justice Pulla Karthik took on file a writ plea filed by Tarigopula Krishna Gopala Reddy, assistant engineer with the respondent department. The petitioner alleged that the authority declined his promotion to the post of executive engineer despite his being qualified and eligible. The petitioner alleged that the same was done on the pretext of pending criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner also alleged that chargesheet was not filed in the criminal proceedings and therefore, actions of respondent authority in withholding his promotion was contrary to the settled position of law as laid down by the apex court in a catena of judgements. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file its response and posted the matter for further adjudication.
HC disapproves charge sheet on quashed offences
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court disapproved of the conduct of the investigating authority in filing a chargesheet against an individual for offences that were quashed earlier. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by one Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 ( Cotpa). The petitioner alleged that despite quashing the proceedings against him for the offences under IPC, the investigating authority filed a chargesheet on the same quashed offences. The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings under COTPA as there was no prohibition for selling the subject products. The judge held that the action of the investigating authority was untenable in law and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner both under the IPC and Cotpa.
