Telangana High Court orders removal of cross erected in Khammam cross roads
Hyderabad: A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavali on Friday observed no temple, mosque, church or religious construction can be established without authorisation and ordered that a cross erected in the middle of road in Khammam be removed within ten days. The […]
Hyderabad: A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavali on Friday observed no temple, mosque, church or religious construction can be established without authorisation and ordered that a cross erected in the middle of road in Khammam be removed within ten days. The Khammam collector VP Gautham, told the court that under public pressure he was unable to remove the cross of Yesu at Muthyalamma Centre at Khammam Town. Anjaiah of Vishwa Hindu Parishad filed the case challenging illegal construction of the cross in middle of the public road. Earlier, the court had ordered removal of unauthorised construction within two weeks. After the collector explained about the public pressure against the removal of construction, the panel made it clear such unauthorised construction was not permitted and directed the collector to remove the cross at Muthyalamma Centre within ten days.
HC orders pension
The panel came to the rescue of a widow running from pillar to post for pension benefits of her husband who expired in 2003. One Seshi Kumari was denied pensionary benefits by the Telangana Housing Board on the grounds that a disciplinary proceeding was pending against her husband. Referring to a government order the panel held once a person expired, the disciplinary proceedings came to end. The panel directed the department to release the pensionary benefits to petitioner with interest at 8.5% per annum. It is also made clear, in the event order is not complied the interest shall be calculated at 12.5% per annum.
IAS officers cadre allotment case
A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice P Mahdavi Devi continued to hear a batch of cases pertaining to absorption of IAS officers. The officers whose case are involved in the litigation include Chief Secretary, Somesh Kumar who was absorbed into Telangana Cadre based on an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Department of Personnel, union of India filed these cases challenging the CAT orders. Surya Karan Reddy the Additional Solicitor General representing the union Government argued that swapping of officers was done without following procedure. Somesh Kumar allotted to Andhra Pradesh was swapped in June 2014 with an officer in Telangana who got retired on the day of swapping. He pointed out that the CAT could not have made the allotments and if the allotments in question were not in accordance with law then the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the appropriate authorities. After hearing the Central Council for a while, the panel adjourned the batch of cases to Monday for hearing. The panel directed the Central Government to specifically point out the multiple alleged errors warranting interference by the court.
Case remanded to sessions court
A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice A Shameem Akther and Justice K Lakshman on Friday remanded back to the Nampally Sessions Court designated for NIA cases, the review application filed for considering bail cancellation of Maddiletti, Sandeep Menchu President and Secretary of Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika(TVV), Nalamasa Krishna, Telangana Praja Front. The said persons were booked under Telangana Public Security Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act with allegations of having connections with Maoists. The said organisations are frontal organizations of Maoists and these persons conducted meetings, dharnas and protests against the democratically elected government, said the NIA counsel. On the other hand counsels representing accused stated that TVV is a registered organisation and questioned how a frontal organization was given registration. Does participating in dharnas, protests constitute threat to security the counsel questioned. However, observing that Sessions Court had not considered all the offences that were foisted against the accused in reconsidering bail application, remanded back the case to Sessions Court for deciding the case in accordance with law.
Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.
Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .
