HC directs A-G, BJP counsel to furnish SC orders for hearing

HC directs A-G, BJP counsel to furnish SC orders for hearing

Advocate-General Banda Shivananda Prasad appeared before the single judge bench of Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana HC on Tuesday at 4.45 pm

Hyderabad: Advocate-General Banda Shivananda Prasad appeared before the single judge bench of Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana HC on Tuesday at 4.45 pm and briefed about the developments in the Supreme Court in TRS MLAs Poaching case by the BJP

Prasad informed the judge that the SC set aside the order of the division bench headed by Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the poaching case.

The CJ court had asked the single bench to monitor the investigation into the case, directed the SIT headed by Police Commissioner CV Anand to submit the progress in the investigation to the single judge and directed SIT not to divulge information to any executive political authority.

The AG told the court that the SC has also set aside the orders of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha of the Telangana HC, who while hearing the criminal revision petition filed by the three accused, Ramachandra Bharathi, Satish Sharma, K. Nandu Kumar, and DPSKVN Simhayaji, who tried to lure four MLAs in to BJP at a farmhouse in Moinabad. They were directed by Justice Sumalatha to surrender before the CP, Cyberabad.

The SC further directed Justice Vijaysen Reddy to dispose of the main writ petition filed by Gujjula Premendar Reddy, general secretary of State BJP, who sought a CBI inquiry into the poaching case.

Reddy had also filed an interim application seeking a CBI inquiry and to stay the notice issued to B L Santosh, BJP national general secretary (Org).

Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor-General, representing the Central government informed the judge that the notice issued by SIT to Santosh had been served at his party office in Delhi on November 20, not in person, as he was not available.

After hearing the contentions of Kumar, the judge questioned the counsel for Premendar Reddy as to why Santosh did not appear before SIT when he had court protection. Earlier, the court had directed SIT not to arrest Santosh when he appears; the noticee should comply with all provisions under Section 41A Cr PC.

Responding to the query of the judge, junior counsel appearing for BJP informed the court that he has to get instructions from his senior counsel as to when Santosh would appear before SIT, as the notice was served on November 20.

The Advocate-General further told the court that Santosh intentionally did not appear before SIT for questioning, flouting the court orders. He averred that any person who does not comply or adhere to the notice under Section 41A CrPC can be arrested after obtaining appropriate orders from the lower court. "He is just playing with the court orders and trying to avoid appearance before SIT.. this will result in criminal prejudice, AG said.

The judge posted the writ petitions to November 23, as the first case for hearing. He made it clear that the SC orders should be furnished before him. The cases will be heard for completing the procedural formalities.

PIL seeks orders to State govt to conserve & restore Hill Fort Palace

On Tuesday the HC division bench, headed by CJ Bhuyan and Justice C V Bhaskar Reddy summoned the five IAS officers to appear before it on December 9 for not complying with the court orders.

The bench directed the Commissioner & Secretary (Finance), Commissioner and Secretary (Tourism), MD, Telangana State Travel and Tourism Development Corporation, GHMC commissioner and HMDA commissioner and vice-chairman, to furnish a comprehensive report/information on steps taken by the government, that too in a phased manner, for restoration and conservation of the Hill Fort Palace located at Naubat Pahad.

On Tuesday, all the officers, except the finance secretary, appeared before the CJ bench, including the two archaeologists.

The bench was adjudicating the PIL filed by the Hyderabad Heritage Trust, seeking a direction to the government to restore and conserve the heritage fort.

The petitioner pleaded that neither the government was taking up restoration work nor permitting the petitioner to take up such work. In the interregnum the fort has been damaged.

CJ Bhuyan expressed serious concern and dissatisfaction over the action of officials as they could not apprise the court on the steps taken by them for restoration and conservation of the fort despite numerous orders passed earlier.

CJ Bhuyan said "kindly inform this court as to when you will commence the actual work… give us the timeline".

The bench, in an annoyed tone, asked the Tourism secretary as to how the department could send a requisition seeking sanction of Rs. 50 crore for taking up conservation work without doing minimum homework viz., works which have to be taken up in a phased manner

The Advocate-General sought a short adjournment, assuring the court that he will discuss with all officers, who appeared, and chalk out a work schedule, including sanction of money from the government and place a detailed and comprehensive affidavit.

Hearing in the case was adjourned to December 9. The court directed all officers to appear again before the CJ court.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories