Hyderabad High Court allows arrested woman to visit kids

Her three children aged 14, eight and three were placed by the Child Welfare Committee at Government Homes following her arrest in February on the charge of making a false Aadhaar card. 

By Author  |  Legal Correspondent  |  Published: 25th May 2018  12:53 am
Hyderabad High Court
Hyderabad High Court

Hyderabad: The two-judge vacation bench of the High Court at Hyderabad comprising Justice SV Bhatt and Justice J Uma Devi on Thursday directed the State authorities to give access to Niloufer Khan to visit her minor children under the custody of the Women and Child Welfare Department of the State. Her three children aged 14, eight and three were placed by the Child Welfare Committee at Government Homes following her arrest in February on the charge of making a false Aadhaar card.

Earlier, the court called for a report. The bench looked into the report and refused to give her the custody of the children but directed that she could visit them under the supervision of the authorities. The bench posted the case to June 5 and called for a fresh report from the Child Welfare Committee.

Detenue’s case to be heard on May 31
The two-judge vacation bench comprising Justice SV Bhatt and Justice J Uma Devi on Thursday posted to May 31 a habeas corpus petition complaining of a detenue being forcibly retained at an alcohol rehabilitation centre in Bengaluru. Ajay Jayadev moved the vacation court complaining that his colleague, Sudhir Dodde, was whisked away by the personnel of CADABAM, a rehab centre, on the basis of a complaint made by the wife of the detenue.

According to the petitioner, the wife made a complaint and moved to the US. He, on the other hand, was forcibly detained against his wishes with no contact with any person outside. Even his cell phone was taken away and he was made to stay in complete isolation. The bench adjourned the matter to next Thursday to enable the respondents, including the State police, to respond.

Plea on ORR tenders adjourned
Justice SV Bhatt of the High Court at Hyderabad adjourned to June 6 a bunch of writ pleas dealing with the tenders for ORR in the city. Earlier, at the instance of Inderdeep Constructions, the High Court directed the HMDA and other authorities not to finalise the tenders based on a notification issued in March. The tender notification was challenged on the ground that the authorities had prescribed a minimum payment to be made by the operator without reference to the traffic at the different toll gates. The court had directed the authorities not to finalise the tenders but permitted the authorities to proceed with all other steps.

Meanwhile, when three bidders were shortlisted, the present contractor, M/s Eagle Infra, challenged the bid submitted by IRB Infrastructure Global as not being in accordance with the tender prescriptions.  However, though the writ petition was not heard, the authorities proceeded to invite the three bidders and decided to acquire the said IRB Infrastructure to run the toll gates as a temporary arrangement. The current operator Eagle Infrastructure challenged the said action as being an inelegant attempt to overcome the direction of the court to not finalise the tenders. The writ petitioner informed the court that the authorities had already handed over the task to the IRB Infrastructure and hence all the writ pleas be heard together after the vacations. The judge accordingly directed the writ pleas to be listed on June 6.

Law entrance test plea adjourned
Justice SV Bhatt of the High Court at Hyderabad on Thursday adjourned to next Thursday two writ pleas from the city questioning the Common Law Entrance Test. Writ petitions on the manner in which the conduct of the examination was visited with multiple technical glitches had been admitted by High Courts across the country.  In fact, the Kolkata High Court also directed the authorities not to declare the final ranks.

Meanwhile, the Apex Court also entertained a writ plea and requested the courts not to entertain similar petitions till tomorrow. When this was brought to the notice of the court, the judge adjourned the matters to the next sitting of the court on May 31.