Hyderabad: The High Court dismissed on Tuesday a writ appeal filed by the Karunamayudu Church against the Rajiv Swagruha Township. A panel of Chief Justice Alok Arade and Justice J. Anil Kumar refused to differ with the view of a single judge who had earlier dismissed the writ petition. The appellant had filed a petition challenging the alleged action of the general manager, Rajiv Swagruha Sahabhavana Township, in dismantling its compound wall without notice. According to the petitioner the land constituted part of the 24 acres of government land and two plots of 100 square yards that were allotted to Samabasiva Rao and Sarojini who offered their plots for construction of a church. The single judge had said, “There is no illegality on the part of the official respondents in taking steps to stop the petitioner from encroaching on to their land at the beginning itself rather than allowing the petitioner to encroach upon their land and then take steps to evict them by following due process of law.”
Plea of Trafficking case accused junked
Justice Sujana Kalasikam dismissed four petitions filed by various accused challenging the chargesheet in connection with the Yadadri sex trafficking case. According to the prosecution, in July 2018, a raid was conducted at Yadadrigutta and the police found multiple children being harboured by the accused. Some of the victims belonging to the Dommara community were being given injections to expedite the puberty, with the assistance of an accused doctor. The chargesheet was filed after examining about 30 witnesses. It was contended by the accused that under Section 370 (a) of IPC, the accused must have knowledge of trafficking and engaging minors for sexual exploitation. Counsel appearing for petitioner, Vasudha Nagaraj, said that the offences were not made out and that the absurdity, improbability, and lack of application of mind reflected in the chargesheet. Advocate Ganesh appearing for the prosecution pointed out that there were serious allegations in the chargesheet and it was not a case for summary rejection. Justice Sujana found that various contentions raised would need to be examined in the trial. Ganesh pointed out that the factual averments or defences raised cannot be the ground to quash a criminal case.
Notice issued over seizure of rice
The Telangana High Court ordered notice in a writ appeal relating to the seizure of 880 bags (440 quintals) of rice by the civil supplies department. Earlier, the appellant Gugulothu Pandu challenged the action of the deputy tahsildar and sub-inspector of Thangal-lapally police in seizing the rice in April 2022. He contended that the paddy was intended to be sold and he had sent it to a rice mill in Rajanna Sircilla district. The rice had since been sold for `7 lakh and the same was deposited in the government account. A single judge found that the a statutory inquiry was underway and no interference was warranted. Senior counsel J. Prabhakar. appearing for the appellant, pointed out that there was a serious infirmity in the order as there was no rice control order. Therefore it cannot be alleged that it was PDS rice. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Arade and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti ordered notice to the authorities and adjourned the matter.
HC quizzes govt on RTE act provisions
The Telangana High Court repeatedly quizzed the state government on implementation of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. A panel of Chief Justice Alok Arade and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti was dealing with a writ petition filed in public interest complaining of non-implementation of Section 12 of the RTE Act, which prescribes seats for economic weaker section and disadvantaged groups of the locality. Senior counsel Sunil Ganu, appearing as amicus, said that it was the admitted case of the government private educational institutions were not mandated to provide the same. This, he complained, was in gross violation of the statutory provisions. The panel required the government to place its stance in writing and adjourned the matter to two weeks.
State of school facilities Under probe
In a connected batch of matters the panel of Chief Justice Alok Arade and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti ordered the government to make clear whether the multiple respondents including the departments of tribal welfare and minority welfare, residential educational institutions and the tribal welfare educational institutions would respond in a batch of PILs complaining of largescale failure on the part of the government in providing basic facilities to school children in accordance with the guidelines of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. It may be mentioned that the bunch of cases was filed complaining of failure on the part of government to provide for basic facilities. Advocate Chikudu Prabakar appearing for the petitioner pointed out that some of the respondents were yet to file their response.
