Case BriefsDistrict Court

   

City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay: In an application filed by Dr. P V Varavara Rao ‘applicant-accused’ seeking permission to travel Hyderabad and to stay there for a period of 3 months for undergoing cataract surgery at Hyderabad, Rajesh J. Katariya, J. refuses to allow the application because if the applicant is permitted to go and stay at Hyderabad for three months, the framing of charge would get prolonged.

The major grounds on which application is filed is that the medical expenses for the said surgery are at higher side and he can get treatment free of charge at Hyderabad being a pensioner of Telangana Government.

Counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is granted permanent medical bail by the Supreme Court however, Counsel for State submitted that the Supreme while granting medical bail imposed condition to the applicant that he shall not leave the area of Gr. Mumbai without the express permission of the Trial Court.

The Court while the rejecting the prayer noted that on perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court it is clear that the Court concerned is required to frame charges against the accused and decide pending discharge application simultaneously within three months from the order dated 18-08-2022, which will get delayed if the application is allowed.

[Varavara Rao v. State of Maharashtra, Application EXH. 841 in NIA Special Case No. 414 of 2020, decided on 23-09-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Niraj Yadav, Advocate, for the Applicant/Accused no. 6;

SPP Mr. Prakash Shetty, Advocate, for the NIA.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Legislation UpdatesStatutes/Bills/Ordinances

The Government of Telangana has issued draft Telangana Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 2021 vide notification dated September 1, 2021. The Draft Rules further amend the Telangana Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rules, 1995 in the following manner:

  • Rule 2A has been inserted which deals with Awareness on prohibition of employment of child & adolescent in convention of Act and states the following:
    1. Public awareness campaigns should be arranged by State Government to make public aware about the provisions of the Act, hence discouraging employers or other persons from engaging children and adolescents in any occupation or process in contravention of the provisions of the Act;
    2. Aware the public about the provisions of the Ac by displaying to the possible extent the provisions of the Act, these Rules and any other information relating thereto in railway coaches, at railway stations, major bus stations, toll plazas, ports and port authorities, airports and other public places etc.
    3. State Government shall also promote inclusion of training and sensitisation material on the provisions of the Act and the responsibilities of various stakeholders thereto, in State Labour Service, police, judicial and civil service academies, teachers training and refresher courses and arrange sensitisation programmes for other relevant stakeholders including, panchayath members, doctors and concerned officials of the Government.
  • Rule 2B has been inserted which relates to child to help his family without affecting education shall be inserted which states that a child may work without affecting his school education subject to following conditions-
    1. Shall not work in hazardous occupation or process
    2. Shall not work at any stage of manufacturing, production, supply or retail chain that is remunerative to the child or his family.
    3. Shall not perform any task during school hours & between 7pm to 8am.
    4. Shall not be engaged in any task continuously without rest which may make him tired.
  • Rule 2C has been inserted which states that a child may be allowed to work as an artist subject to following conditions-
    1. No child shall be allowed to work more than 5 hours in a day & not more than 30 hours without rest.
    2. Any producer of any audio-visual media production involving child shall obtain prior permission from District magistrate where the activity is to be performed. The consent of parents & guardians shall also be obtained prior to the participation of child in an event.
    3. Appropriate facilities for education of the child shall be arranged so to ensure no discontinuity from his lessons in school.
    4. No child shall be allowed to work consecutively for more than 27 days.
    5. Atleast 1 responsible person to be appointed for a maximum of 5 children for the production or event to ensure the protection, care & best interest of the child.
    6. Atleast 20% of income earned by the child from production or event shall be directly deposited in fixed deposit in Nationalized Bank in the name of the child.
  • The medical authority while examining an adolescent for issuing the certificate of age shall take into account-
    1. The Aadhar card of the adolescent
    2. the date of birth certificate from school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board of the adolescent, if available, and in the absence thereof;
    3. The birth certificate of the adolescent given by a corporation or a Local Authority.
  • Form E has been inserted, ‘Undertaking under Rule 2C (1)(b) of the Telangana Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Rules, 1995’.

The Draft Rules are open for objections and suggestions, if any, should be addressed to the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad through the Commissioner of Labour, T.Anjaiah Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Roads, Hyderabad, Telangana within 45 days from September 02, 2021.

 


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the dispute relating to distribution of personnel between the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporations, the bench of Ashok Bhushan* and MR Shah, JJ has held that the allocation made by the One-man Committee of former Supreme Court judge, Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari is final and that the said allocation cannot be challenged by any employee or officer or any utility before any forum.

After the division of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States, namely, the State of Telangana and the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh by Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the power utilities of Telangana unilaterally relieved 1157 employees working with power utilities of Telangana to join in respective power utilities of Andhra Pradesh. The power utilities of Telangana were motivated by principle of nativity, i.e., those employees whose service records mentioned them as resident of any part of the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh were relieved and those who belonged to territory of the newly formed State of Telangana were permitted to join at Telangana by their self-option, against which writ petition was filed before the High Court.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned action of power utilities of Telangana relieving 1157 employees and issued further directions. The High Court specifically disapproved the principle of nativity, which was the factor for allocation of the employees by the Telangana State power utilities.

Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited filed moved the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court. Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court, however, noticing that two States have not been able to arrive at any consensus and to finally determine the modalities for distributing the personnel between two States, it, with the agreement of the parties entrusted the task to One-Man Committee of Justice Dharmadhikari. The Court also permitted the parties to approach the Court by filing an interlocutory application, if any, clarification or further directions were required.

The One-Man Committee after deliberations with all stakeholders noticed that 655 employees have been allocated from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh and equal numbers from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana including 71 names from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana, which was held to be of special cases like spouse and medical cases.

On the liberty granted to parties to seek clarification or further direction, the Supreme Court said that it was done with object to complete the process of distributing the personnel between two States. There was no right of appeal given to any of the parties or any officer or employee against the report of One-Man Committee.

“The power utilities of both the States having not been able to arrive at any consensus to finally determine the modalities to distribute the personnel between two States, this Court constituted One-Man Committee to decide the dispute. When this Court clearly directed as noted above that decision of OneMan Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties including power utility companies as well as the employees, the decision of the One-Man Committee has to be given due weight and cannot be lightly interfered with.”

[Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 995, decided on 07.12.2020]


*Justice Ashok Bhushan has penned this judgement

For Telangana State power utilities: Senior Counsels Mukul Rohtagi, Rakesh Dwivedi, V. Giri, Ranjit Kumar

For Andhra Pradesh power utilities: Senior Counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul

For Telangana Electricity Engineers Association: Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Telangana High Court: The Division Bench of Raghavendra Singh Chauhan, CJ and Vijaysen Reddy, J., while banning the use of firecrackers stated that,

“Much as the festivals may be important and may serve social purpose, nonetheless, the lives of the people are the most important.”

The instant petition was filed to seek an order in the nature of Mandamus duly declaring the action of the respondents in not enforcing the ban of sale and use of crackers during November 10 to 30 for Diwali Festival across the State of Telangana as been done in other States in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Petitioner sought the relief that the Government should be directed to ban the sale and use of firecrackers by the people during Diwali festival.

It was further added that, according to the medical literature, the Corona Virus adversely affects the lungs of the patients, besides adversely affecting the other organ system of the body. Due to the lungs infection, patients have been facing extremely difficult to breathe normally and to survive.

Since the winter season is setting in, the pollution created by the fireworks tends to hang in the air, thereby jeopardizing the lives of many and, especially, of the patients who are suffering from Corona Virus.

Advocate General, B.S. Prasad submitted that so far the Government has not taken any policy decision for banning the use of firecrackers during the Diwali festival. Government merely hopes that people will continue to observe the safety precautions for COVID-19.

Decision

Bench stated that presently, the Nation and the State are struggling with the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 adversely affects the respiratory system. Moreover, the use of fireworks adversely affects air quality.

Considering the above-stated two factors, the State of Rajasthan has already banned the use of fireworks during the Diwali season. Moreover, even other High Courts have banned the use of fireworks in their respective States.

Court while directing the State to immediately ban the sale and use of fireworks by the people and organizations, observed that

“It is the bounden duty of the State to ensure that the lives of the people are protected and promoted in a meaningful way. Since the Government has not declared any ban on the use of fireworks so far, but considering the fact that the lives of the people need to be protected, considering the fact that uncontrolled and untrammelled use of fireworks may jeopardize the lives of many.”

Bench also directed the State to immediately clampdown and close the shops which are selling fireworks, State is also directed to issue an appeal to people, both through print, press and electronic media to refrain from bursting firecrackers in order to prevent the deterioration in the air quality.

Matter to be listed on 19-11-2020.[P. Indra Prakash v. State of Telangana, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1528, decided on 12-11-2020]

Telangana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Telangana High Court: A Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ and B. Vijaysen Reddy, J., while addressing the present petition observed the following:

“The preventive detention laws cannot be invoked as an easy way method bypassing the ordinary law and if a detention order is passed, it is very much necessary for the detaining authority to apply its mind and arrive at a conclusion that ordinary law is not capable of acting deterrent against the detenu and thus, detention order needs to be passed.”

Commissioner of Police had passed a detention order against Mohd. Nawaz in the exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertilizer Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act, 1986 (Amendment Act No.13 of 2018) which has been challenged as being illegal and arbitrary.

Counsel for the petitioner was Pendya Swathi and T. Srikanth Reddy, Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.

It was noted that the detaining authority considered five cases as grounds for his detention.

Courts concerned had granted conditional bails in all the 5 five cases wherein the bail petitions by the detenu were moved.

Prosecution opposed the grant of bail even after that the Courts concerned granted the detenu conditional bails.

If the detaining authority feels that even after strongly opposing the bail, the concerned Courts have granted bail, it is always left open for the authorities to move an application for cancellation of bail either before the same Court or higher Court.

Further, the Court stated that the State cannot take advantage of its own lapses, whereby, on one hand, the State does not effectively oppose the bail application or seeks cancellation of bail and on the other hand, the State finds an easy way method to pass detention order by invoking preventive detention laws.

Supreme Court’s decision in Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta, (1970) 1 SCC 149, it was observed that,

“…The power to detain is an exceptional power to be used under exceptional circumstances. It is wrong to consider the same, as the executive appears to have done in the present case, that it is a convenient substitute for the ordinary process of law.”

Bench also observed that an order of detention has to be resorted to as an extreme and last step only when attempts made by the authorities to deal with and prosecute the detenu under ordinary law do not yield results.

Court stated that the crimes mentioned against the detenu relate to specific individuals/victims and come within the ambit of maintenance of law and order and not public order.

Hence the impugned detention order is unsustainable and was therefore set aside.[Mohd. Jaffar v. State of Telangana, 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1030, decided on 03-09-2020]

Telangana High Court
Hot Off The PressNews

Latest Update in the Case:

As reported by ANI, Telangana High Court orders to preserve the bodies of the accused, till 13-12-2019.

The matter has been posted for hearing on 12-12-2019.

Advocate Prakash Reddy has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

 

Background:

A representation was made at the Chief Justice’s Office on 6-12-2019, wherein the request for judicial intervention was placed with respect to the extra-judicial killing of the 4 accused’s involved in rape and murder of Disha (name changed) on 27-11-2019.

Advocate General of Telangana informed that the post-mortem of the 4 accused was being done and the same was also being video graphed.

Court asked the video of the post-mortem to be given to the Principal District Judge once the post-mortem is done, which further is to be submitted to the Registrar General of the High Court of Telangana.

Court has further directed for the preservation of the bodies till 9-12-2019 and the matter has been listed for 9-12-2019 before the bench of the Chief Justice of Telangana High Court. [Police encounter which occurred on 06-12-2019 at Chatanapally Village, WP (PIL) No. 173 of 2019, Order dated 06-12-2019]