Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict an order of a single judge albeit observing that the Regional Passport Officer (RPO) has no authority to decide issues regarding the custody of passport of a minor child. Zohair Shaheen Mohammed, the appellant, approached the court with a writ plea challenging a letter issued by the RPO, Hyderabad, for involving in the matrimonial issues between him and his estranged wife, by advising through the letter to return the child’s passport to the mother. Primarily, the mother filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner for obtaining the passport on the pretext of renewing it and thereby cheating her and the child by refusing to hand over the passport. The mother also approached the RPO informing him about the alleged incident. Based on this representation, keeping in mind the welfare of the child, the RPO suggested that the petitioner hand over the passport to the mother. The single judge, in his order, observed that in the interest of the child, and also to take care of her welfare, the petitioner was directed to deposit the passport on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, within a period of 15 days from July 18. The court also made it clear that, on such a deposit, the mother was granted liberty to make an appropriate application before the trial court seeking release of the passport. It also, however, observed that the RPO has no authority suggesting handing over the passport to the mother. The petitioner, aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao after hearing the parties affirmed the order of the single judge and directed the petitioner to deposit the passport with the trial court.
HC summons high-ranking revenue officials
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the appearance of several top officials, including the principal secretary of the state revenue department, district collector of Nalgonda, commissioner of Nalgonda, and the revenue divisional officer (LAO) of Nalgonda, to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for failing to compensate a businessman for 27 years after dispossessing him of his property in 1997. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Md Nazeeruddin Uddin in which he alleged that despite orders from the Lokayukta of Telangana on October 8, 2015, to pay compensation within four months, no payment was made till date by the authorities. The petitioner’s property in question was acquired for the purpose of widening a master road from the government hospital to the railway station in Nalgonda town under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. The government had earlier argued that the respondent officers had been granted exemption via a government-issued notification. However, the judge questioned procedural irregularities in the notification process, noting that while the law requires publication in the state gazette, the respondents only published the notification in the district gazette. Additionally, the counsel for the petitioner revealed that the respondents allowed construction of shops on the petitioner’s land and have been collecting rent from those properties, adding further controversy to the case. The Government Pleader, citing lack of financial resources from the Nalgonda Municipality to deposit Rs 1.2 crore towards the compensation, failed to convince the judge, especially considering the taxes collected by the municipality and the excessive delay in the matter. The judge posted the matter to October 24, 2024, summoning officials to explain their prolonged inaction and justify why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against them for causing undue hardship to the petitioner.
PF commissioner action upheld by HC
Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court gave an expansive definition to the punitive provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. She disposed of a writ plea filed by the wife of the person arrested under section 8B (1)b of EPF Act. She challenged the detention of her husband in civil imprisonment as contrary to law. According to the petitioner, her son was the president of M/s Unnathi Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd, which allegedly had failed to pay PF contributions to the tune of over Rs 62 lakh for a period between 2004 to 2010. Her contention that her husband was no way connected to the society and was therefore not liable, did not find favour. It was her contention that the actions of the recovery officer of the PF Act in sending the third party to civil imprisonment, when he is no way connected to the society, was illegal. She pointed out that the society belonged to her son and his whereabouts were not known and the authorities were pressuring her husband to pay the due amount on a detailed consideration of the facts of the case. Justice Bhattacharya held that there was suppression of material facts in the petition. She, however, granted a partial relief by requiring the petition to deposit the 50 per cent of the amount due for his release from civil imprisonment and directed to provide security for the balance.