Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ appeal qua alleged encroachment of government land at Indranagar in Gachibowli. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with an appeal filed by one K. Dhanraj and four others.
Earlier, a writ petition was filed by N. Vishal Singh, a resident of Indranagar. It was the case of the petitioner that the unofficial respondents had encroached government land that is in close proximity to his residence and began construction work. The petitioner contended that in response to his Right to Information application, the respondent authorities informed that the door numbers, under which the unofficial respondents were making construction, had been blocked, and since the construction made by them was without permission, the respondent authorities had initiated action. It was the complaint of the petitioner that though authorities mention initiating action, the unofficial respondents were continuing to occupy the said houses.
Counsel appearing for GHMC argued that on receiving the complaint from the petitioner, the civic body had initiated action by issuing a show-cause notice. As he did not submit any explanation, the respondent authorities would take further action in the matter by passing a speaking order, following the due process of law.
The single judge considering the arguments said that authorities were required to firstly protect the government land from being encroached; secondly, by ensuring that no unauthorised and illegal construction comes up therein and thirdly, when such instances or occurrences are brought to their notice, the authorities are required to take action swiftly by removing such unauthorised and illegal constructions by following due process of law.
The judge accordingly directed action in an expeditious manner, so as to ensure that unauthorised and illegal construction does not exist. The appellant argued that the order in challenge was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The panel directed the respondents to file their response.
Gachibowli SHO told to furnish details of efforts to trace missing teenager
The Telangana High Court directed the station house officer (SHO), Gachibowli police station, to produce all records qua the steps taken to locate the minor who has been missing since last November.
A two-judge panel admitted a habeas corpus petition seeking that the 16-year-old boy be produced. The panel, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, was dealing with a writ petition filed by a watchman, challenging the alleged inaction of the state police in tracing his son.
According to the special government pleader (SGP), appearing for the respondent authorities, the police had issued a look-out notice and have been searching for the missing child. The SGP also pointed out that during the investigation, the detenue’s phone history revealed searched on how to travel to Visakhapatnam, which is located near his residence in Vizianagaram. The SGP argued that habeas corpus is generally not maintainable in missing complaints, but the petitioner’s counsel countered that the detenue is a minor, warranting judicial intervention.
The panel required the SHO, Gachibowli PS, to produce all records regarding the steps taken to locate the minor and posted the matter for further adjudication.
Businessman gets anticipatory bail in mobile phone sale case
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused in a mobile phone misappropriation case. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Mohd Anwar.
The director of Mobitech Creations Pvt. Ltd lodged a complaint alleging that Beemannolla Shankarappa, head of the after-sales service centre, had misappropriated 550 mobile phones worth `two crore. An ex-employee tipped off the company that Shankarappa had been selling phones to third parties, leading to an internal investigation. Police registered a case.
During investigation, the petitioner was implicated as a recipient of the misappropriated phones. The petitioner argued that he was a reputed businessman running a mobile sales and service business in Himayatnagar for 20 years and that he was misled by accused no. 1, the branch manager, who supplied mobile phones with invoices. He contended that he had no role in the alleged offence and was being falsely implicated.
The petitioner also submitted that he suffered from health issues, which could worsen in police custody. The additional public
Considering these factors, the judge deemed it fit to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
Controller of explosives directed to follow the law
Justice J. Sreenivas of the Telangana High Court restrained the deputy chief controller of explosives (DCCE) from interfering in the business operations of Sri Venkateshwara Minerals, an explosives trading firm, as long as its licence remained valid. The judge was dealing with a writ petition challenging the suspension of petitioner’s licence and the subsequent actions of the authorities, preventing it from conducting business.
According to the petitioner, the firm was a licensed explosives dealer since 2015, with its licence renewed for five years in 2020, making it valid until March 31, 2025. In July 2024, the DCCE suspended its licence, alleging violations of Rule 7 of the Explosives Act by transporting explosives to non-licence holders.
The suspension was based on pending criminal cases against the petitioner, who challenged the suspension by filing a writ petition in the High Court. It set aside the order and the authorities were directed to consider the petitioner’s explanation before passing further orders. The petitioner contended that despite submitting an explanation denying the allegations, authorities issued new proceedings in October 2024 and January 2025, restricting the petitioner’s business activities without formally suspending the licence.
The petitioner argued that these actions were in gross violation of natural justice, as no formal suspension order was in place. Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner had no right to continue business due to pending criminal cases, and that the authorities acted within their powers under the Explosives Act, 2008.
After reviewing the case, the judge ruled that the DCCE is prohibited from interfering with the petitioner’s business as long as due process of law is followed. The judge further observed that no final order on the suspension had been passed, and without such an order, the authorities cannot prevent the petitioner’s business operations.
