Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to nine petitioners, including a minor, in connection with a kidnapping case registered at Khanapur Police Station, Nirmal district. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Bojja Thirupathi and eight others. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, Kashaveni Lathika, alleged that the petitioners forcibly took her in a car and assaulted her. The prosecution further stated that the petitioners kidnapped her and threatened her with dire consequences. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the case arose out of a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and her second husband in connection with the custody of her minor daughter. It was submitted that the petitioners, who are neighbours and relatives, only persuaded the complainant to visit her ailing child and were falsely implicated due to personal grudge. After hearing both sides, the judge observed that the petitioners and the complainant were closely related and that the incident stemmed from family discord rather than criminal intent. Considering the relationship between the parties, the nature of allegations, and the stage of investigation, the judge held that custodial interrogation was unwarranted and granted conditional anticipatory bail.
HC admits daily wager plea on pay
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the inaction of the district collector and the district tribal development officer, Suryapet, in not considering a daily wage worker’s representation for grant of minimum time scale on par with similarly placed workers. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Ramavath Nandulal, a daily wage worker in the Government Tribal Welfare Boys Hostel, Suryapet district. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of minimum time scale of Rs 19,000 per month on par with his colleagues working in Government Tribal Welfare Hostels in Suryapet and Nalgonda districts. The petitioner contended that despite submitting a representation, the authorities failed to consider his claim and implement the directions of the apex court which mandates payment of wages at par with regular employees performing similar duties. The judge directed the government pleader to obtain instructions.
HC upholds ST officers’ promotions
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ruled that once the state exercised its authority to provide reservation with consequential seniority, it could not nullify those promotions through executive orders. The judge quashed two government memos that sought to review promotions granted to Scheduled Tribe officers in the State Secretariat, ruling that the State cannot disturb settled seniority protected under the Constitution. The judge allowed a batch of writ pleas filed by S. Laxmi Bai and three others, all ST employees, and restored their promotions and consequential seniority with full benefits. The petitioners, who were promoted to posts such as joint secretary and section officer, contended that the government memos amounted to reviving the abolished ‘catch-up rule’ and undermining reservation in promotions under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution. They argued that Telangana already completed the constitutional exercise mandated by the Supreme Court, and any further review was illegal. The judge criticised the State for rejecting the petitioners’ representations without assigning reasons, terming the action arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution.
Habeas corpus for detainee under JJ Act dismissed
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition seeking release of two women rescued during an operation in Yadadri. The panel dismissed a writ petition .filed by Kamsani Anjali, alleging illegal detention of two women at the State Home in Madhuranagar, Yousufguda. The panel, speaking through Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, held that the petitioner had no locus standi to approach the court with a habeas corpus plea. Her status as a friend was unclear and could not be relied upon, the panel observed. The Special Government Pleader, Swaroop Oorilla, informed the court details of the area where the petitioner is living and also pointed out the challenges of the likelihood of detainees being pushed into the sex trade again. He submitted that the petitioner resides in a sensitive area. The argument of Swaroop Oorilla is that the protection of the victims in the State Home cannot be declared as illegal. The panel also took cognisance of the After Care programme of the victims under the Juvenile Justice Act. The argument of Vasudha Nagaraj, counsel for the petitioner, that on becoming major, law recognised the automated right of the detainee to be set free and for the victims to choose their own lifestyle did not find favour with the panel. The panel rejecting the habeas corpus petition also said that a habeas corpus was a matter of high moral fabric and must necessarily be actuated by an intent to liberate the detained person. Applying the various principles, the panel held that the victim was not in illegal detention, and therefore held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.
