Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice N Tukaramji Reddy, on Wednesday heard in detail a writ plea filed by Turupu Anitha and a ward member contending that the MLAs and MLCs were being given the discretion to choose to be the ex-officio members of the municipality area of their choice. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Vadeendra Joshi, submitted to the court that this has a direct impact on the elections of the municipalities since it influences the entire election process. He argued that they can only be an ex-officio member of the ward where they were registered previously. The court observed that there is no concept of territorial constituency and adjourned the matter.
PIL on paddy purchase
The panel affirmed that no statutory provisions make it obligatory for the government to procure paddy or any other crop at Minimum Support Price (MSP). The panel made the observations on a petition filed by a law student seeking the Telangana government and the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to acquire paddy cultivated by the State’s farmers during the kharif season. Massive volumes of paddy remain with farmers, according to the petitioner, due to non-procurement. Due to a shortage of storage space, they are unable to store it. The petitioner further claimed that enormous stockpiles had been washed away in rains and floods. The panel questioned the petitioner’s credibility, and how a law student could file a PIL on paddy purchase, a topic that affects farmers. The panel adjourned the PIL after the Advocate General gave assurance that the State government was doing its best and would purchase the paddy by end of January 2022.
The panel dismissed a writ plea filed by Ranganayakamma for playing fraud on the court for misrepresenting facts. The issue pertained to whether the land was an Inam land or belonged to math. It was observed that in spite of the petitioners passing away, their thumb impressions were falsely put on vakalat. The panel gave strict directions that such actions by the petitioners will not be appreciated since it also reduces the time of the court in dealing with genuine cases. It was further observed that the legal representatives of the petitioners were also not substituted and thumb impressions of people who were not alive at the time of filing the case were put.
Land in Scheduled Areas
The panel dismissed a PIL filed by Sureddy Ramana Reddy challenging Regulation 31a of the Telangana Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended to the extent it deprives the right of residence of non-tribals in the scheduled areas of Telangana as unconstitutional. The petitioner prayed to set aside the prohibition against transfer of immovable property in Scheduled Areas by non-tribals in favour of non-tribals. While observing that the matter was squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in P Rami Reddy vs State of AP, it dismissed the PIL.
Motor Vehicles Tax
The panel heard in detail the matters pertaining to challenge of GO Ms No 15 Transport Roads Buildings Department issued by the State in 2015. Various writs were filed contending that the State is not entitled to levy and collect the Motor Vehicles Tax in respect of Contract Carriage Vehicles as Hyderabad continues to be the common capital of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana as per Sec 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organisation Act 2014. The panel posted all the matters after three weeks.
Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.