Telangana HC issues notices to MLAs Danam Nagendar and K Sambasiva Rao

The Election Petition was filed seeking directions to set aside Danam Nagendar’s recent election in Telangana State Legislative Assembly elections held on November 30, 2023. The petitioner contended that information was suppressed in Form 26 Affidavit under Conduct of Election Rules 1961. The counsel for the petitioner contended that MLA did not furnish accurate information while submitting the nominations.

The MLA didn’t mention the list of properties in his wife’s name in the nomination papers submitted to the Election Commission, the counsel said. After hearing the said submissions, the matter was posted to April 18 for the response of Danam Nagendar.

In another petition, Justice K Lakshman notices to Kothagudam MLA Kunamneni Sambasiva Rao of Communist Party of India, while dealing with a couple of Election petitions. The Election petition against MLA K. Sambasiva Rao was filed by Nandu Lal Agarwal challenging his election to the recent Telangana State Legislative Assembly held on November 30,2023 and for which the results were declared on December 3, 2023.

The petitioner’s contentions were that K Sambasiva Rao failed to comply and to furnish the required material information prescribed under Conduct of Election Rules 1961. He further contended that a false Form 26 affidavit dated 08/11/2023 was filed by Sambasiva Rao violating Conduct of Election Rules. Accordingly, the matter was posted to April 16, for response of the respondents.

Meanwhile, a two-judge panel of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar suspended the punishment imposed against the franchise owner of Barista for a week. A single judge had earlier found Nanda Kumar, owner of Barista, guilty of contempt for carrying on with interior work in the restaurant against status-quo order of the court.

The single judge on the basis of a report submitted by the civic authorities found that the contemnors had carried out the works at the said place and therefore had violated the orders of the court.

The single judge had punished Nanda Kumar, the proprietor of the Hotel for contempt with a sentence of one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on February 23. Senior counsel appearing for the contemnor pointed out that inspection was conducted without notice to the petitioner. He also pointed out that the report was placed on file by a private party, actor Venkatesh and not by the civic authorities. The bench posted the matter to March 28 for the response of the contempt petitioner.

Kashi Vishwanatha temple

Justice NV Shravan Kumar of Telangana High Court on Friday dealt with a writ plea which challenged the construction proceedings of Kasi Vishwanatha Temple at Jiyaguda on the premises of Sri Keshava Maharaj Samadhi. One Narayan Balakishan Dande Maharaj, an archaka filed this writ plea seeking directions to the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department to stop the construction on the premises of Samadhi.

The petitioner contended that the subject land was in their possession and that the Samadhi was a 350-year-old one. He said the Samidhi will be destroyed if the temple construction was permitted. The judge directed the petitioner to submit the documentary evidence in support of his possession of the subject land and adjourned the matter to March 26 for the response of the State.

GHMC and HMDA issued notices

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of Telangana High Court on Friday directed to issue notices to GHMC and HMDA in matters pertaining to illegal construction of a Temple in an open space situated at Prashant Nagar, Miyapur without the permission from the concerned authorities. The petition was filed by B. Ashok Kumar, a resident of the area, challenged the actions of the GHMC in allowing the unofficial respondents to construct a temple in an open space.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that, already a temple was existing in the said layout, yet another Temple is under construction without taking permissions from the concerned authorities. The Judge while observing the same, questioned the counsel representing GHMC, as to how the construction was allowed in an open space?. In response, the Counsel said, as it was a temple we could not take appropriate actions.

The Judge reprimanded the counsel and commented “whether it may be a Temple, Mosque or Church there cannot be any construction without permission”. However, the matter was posted after two weeks for the detailed response of authorities.