File status report on pollution by Divis Labs, HC directs govt

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed the State government and its authority, i e. Pollution Control Board, to file latest status report on the seventh respondent M/s Divis Laboratories, Choutuppal mandal, Nalgonda district, which was allegedly causing pollution in nearby villages.

The HC division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, heard the public interest litigation filed by farmers of Golnepalli and Nemalikalva villages, Valigonda mandal, alleging that M/s Divis Laboratories situated at Choutuppal mandal, was causing pollution to fields, ground water and air in their area and leaving harmful pollutants in the Moosi river at various places.

The petitioners alleged that in spite of representations the concerned authorities are not taking action, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. They requested the court to issue necessary directions for conservation of the river and tanks from dumping of highly polluting deleterious material generated from the laboratory.

The GP for TS Pollution Control Board informed the bench that since 2013 the laboratory has not obtained permission from the concerned authorities.

Hearing the contentions of the PCB GP, the CJ bench directed the counsel for Divis Laboratories and Government Pleader for PCB to file latest status report. For further hearing, the case was adjourned to September 15.

Is it a pvt. interest litigation or PIL, HC shows ire on petitioner's counsel

• Bench dismisses PIL

The Telangana High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, heard the public interest litigation filed against the appointment of four State Information Commissioners.

The PIL filed by Aldandi Rajaswamy, a private employee from Allwyn Colony, Kukatpally, against GO 23 (General Administration department) dated October 21, 2020, issued by the government on the appointment of Katta Sekhar Reddy, Guguloth Shankar Naik, Syed Khaleelullah, Myda Narayana Reddy and Mohd Ameer Hussain as State ICs, State lnformation Commission, was against the SubSection (6) of Section 15 of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005 was illegal and unconstitutional.

Counsel for the petitioner Rapolu Bhaskar informed the court that 109 persons applied for the post of SICs. Sekhar Reddy, Shankar Naik, Khaleelullah, Narayana Reddy and Ameer were appointed as SICs without eligibility. Moreover, they belong to TRS party and have been appointed in the social work category. They have filed an affidavit that they are not holding any post in the party, and before appointment itself they have resigned from the party, Bhaskar asserted.

S Ashok Anand Kumar, counsel for the respondents Shankar Naik, Khaleelullah and Ameer informed the court that Bhaskar is one of the applicants for the post of SICs. The petitioner counsel might have filed a writ petition rather than a PIL, he said. There are no allegations at all and no material papers are filed against the respondents, he informed the court.

After hearing the contention of the respondents' counsel, CJ Bhuyan, irked over Bhaskar's contention, asked: Is it true, as being a counsel to the petitioner in the same matter, how can you argue before the court. Is this a private interest litigation or public. You are the candidate and your candidature was rejected. Somebody else might have appeared on behalf of the petitioner, why did you appear, this is wrong, the CJ opined.

The bench called Rajaswamy and enquired about the petition; does he know the RTI Act and facts in the petition. Bhaskar had informed you about his candidature in SIC's post.

Rajaswamy informed the bench that he doesn't know the counsel's candidature and he is a social worker and secretary, Council for Citizens Rights Organisation.

The CJ asked how can an organisation be registered under the Company's Act, Is it a company or organisation. Irked over petitioner counsel's contention, the CJ said the court will dismiss the PIL with costs.

Bhaskar and petitioner informed the bench that they would like to withdraw the petition. The bench, consenting to the petitioner and Bhaskar's request, dismissed the PIL.