Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to the proprietor of a rice mill alleged who allegedly misappropriated paddy stock worth `1.32 crore. Justice J. Sridevi was dealing with a petition filed by Chakinarapu Saritha. It was alleged by the district manager, Telangana Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Mancherial, that during Kharif 2021-22, 2,017.280 metric tonnes (MTs) of paddy was allotted to Shivamani Rice Mill, Shivalingapur, Chennur mandal, for custom milling. The petitioner only delivered 1,095.771 MTs of custom-milled rice. It was alleged by the complainant that during the course of inspection, it was found that the petitioner diverted the paddy/rice for pecuniary advantage in violation of the agreement entered with the district manager, TSCSCL, and misappropriated paddy stock worth `1,32,73,145. The petitioner contended that due to heavy rain, the paddy in the mill was damaged and the same was informed to the officials. The petitioner contended that a panchanama was conducted by the deputy tahsildar and it was found that the paddy was damaged due to heavy rain. It was the case of the petitioner that though the district manager, TSCSCL, Mancherial, had given a report stating that the paddy was damaged due to heavy rain, he also lodged the present complaint after two years stating that the petitioner misappropriated the paddy, which was in complete contradiction and violation of earlier report. Counsel for the petitioner argued that failure on the part of the petitioner to deliver custom-milled rice was a violation of the agreement and the remedy provided in the agreement was to approach the civil court to enforce the terms of the agreement or to recover amount due, but it was not a criminal offence. The judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner inter alia subject to condition that he shall abide by the other conditions stipulated in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and co-operate with the investigating officer. The judge accordingly allowed the criminal petition.
Woman files plea for minor son
A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and N. Tukaramji took on file a writ of habeas corpus filed by a woman seeking a direction to the state government and the police to produce before the court her minor child, who is a permanent resident of the United States, from the unlawful custody of her ex-husband. It was the case of the petitioner that when the minor child visited his father, he illegally brought the child outside the jurisdiction of the United States court in total contravention of the custody orders passed by courts in the United States. Further, he also instituted parallel proceedings in Indian courts and filed for custody in the family court at Charminar, Hyderabad. The court, issuing notice to the respondents, directed the father to allow the petitioner to contact the child through video conferencing for a period of two weeks, and adjourned the matter.
GP moves court for payment of honorarium
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the action of the state law department and other authorities in not releasing honorarium of a government pleader. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by advocate S. Kamalkar, who alleged that his honorarium for 42 months remained unpaid despite various representations to the respondent authorities. The judge remarked that non-payment of honorarium to an officer performing his duties tantamounted to a legislative offence. The judge refused to consider the justification given by the respondent authorities citing non-allocation of budget towards the payment of the same. The judge remarked that the reason given by respondent authorities was not a legitimate ground to deny the petitioner of his rightful arrears. Accordingly, the judge directed the government pleader appearing for the respondents to seek instructions.
Discom stopped from erecting poles on road
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court continued the interim orders restraining the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company from erecting electric poles in the middle of Manchal road. The allegations against the power distribution company were that it was proceeding to erect poles of 33 KV between Ibrahimpatnam and Manchal on the 50 feet road. Manchireddy Malla Reddy and 24 others in their writ petition alleged that said were erected in between the road which experiences heavy traffic. He contended that even though there is vast open place to erect the electricity poles behind the Manchal road, the respondents were refusing to consider the same. The petitioner earlier addressed a representation in October 2023 to the TSSPDCL requesting them to consider erecting the electricity poles in the open space, but in vain. The judge after hearing the parties extended the interim orders restraining TSSPDCL from erecting electric poles and directed the respondent authorities to file their response before the next date of hearing and posted the matter for further adjudication.
Housing Corporation policy under lens
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court will examine the legality of actions of the Telangana State Housing Corporation Limited (TGHCL) and other authorities, in not regularising the services of its present and former retired employees as per an earlier GO issued by the department. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by M.A. Khaleel and six others, a few of whom are employed as attenders and watchman. The petitioners alleged that TGHCL failed to regularise their services under GO dated May 8, 2006, whereunder several similarly situated employees and juniors to the petitioners were regularised. The petitioners complained that the respondent authorities belatedly regularised their services under subsequent GO dated June 28, 2018, without providing any valid reason. The petitioners alleged that the actions of the respondent authorities were unjustified and in violation of the Constitution. The petitioners sought for regularisation with retrospective effect under the earlier GO with consequential service benefits and arrears. After hearing the petitioners, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.