Telangana HC tells passport applicant to nod in court

HyderabadA two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday heard an appeal filed by the central government on whether the Supreme Court could order the renewal of a passport for 10 years without reference to the pending criminal case against the applicant. Earlier, a single judge had directed the passport authorities to pass appropriate orders on Mahendra Kumar Agarwal’s application for renewal of his passport for ten years without referring to any criminal case registered by the Madhapur police. Deputy Solicitor General Praveen Kumar submitted that the Single Judge should have realized that while exercising the power under Section 22A of the Passport Act, a notification has been issued stating that a person against whom a criminal case is pending must obtain consent from the magistrate before you travel. Senior advocate BS Prasad, appearing on behalf of Agarwal, contended that the court had not passed any order to take cognizance of the matter. In that scenario, failure to renew the passport was a violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights. The panel on Tuesday accordingly modified the single judge’s orders and directed that the applicant should not leave the country without permission of the concerned court.

HC relief to Sirpur Paper Mills

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court filed a plea for disrupting the functioning of M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd by Truck and Bus Owners Welfare Association. The judge heard a plea from the company. According to the petitioner, the company, founded in 1938 and engaged in the production of paper and related products, was one of the most important paper mills in the country. The petitioner argued that the members of the Lorry & Bus Owners Welfare Association were individual truck owners who provided transportation of the trucks from the factory premises to various destinations at the agreed freight rates. The association’s representatives demanded a steep increase in freight costs, which was unfeasible. The petitioner alleged that the association members disrupted transportation services for nearly 20 days in March, causing the company to suffer serious losses. Earlier, a petition was filed by the same petitioner when the trucks carrying finished products were not allowed to leave the factory premises and the High Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Komaram Bheem Asifabad District and the Kagaznagar station officer to provide police assistance to the petitioners for transporting the petitioner’s products by road by truck from the factory premises outside Sirpur town until further orders. Senior Counsel Vedula Srinivas, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the present petition was filed when the members of the association did not allow the vehicles carrying raw materials to deliver them to the paper mills and did not allow the empty trucks to leave the factory. after delivery. A senior counsel argued that this would halt production at the paper mills, impacting not only the company’s operations but also the livelihoods of nearly 2,500 families dependent on the paper mills. Justice Vijaysen Reddy accordingly directed the Komaram Bheem Asifabad DSP Kagaznagar SHO to provide police assistance for moving trucks carrying the raw materials to the factory premises coming from different places and for abandoning those trucks and against blocking them in any manner at the factory gate or the petitioner’s municipality by parking his vehicles illegally.

Claim for damages rejected

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking compensation and employment due to the inundation of the petitioners’ land due to the 2012 leakage of water from the northern ash ponds KTPS Phases 1 and 2. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by G. Rama Krishna and three others in which they claimed that their land had not been usable for agricultural purposes since 2012. The petitioners alleged that despite several representations to the authorities, no compensation was paid to the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners submitted a joint inspection report of a committee constituted by the subdistrict court on the directions of the court. After considering the environmental engineer’s report, the judge found that the report showed that the petitioners’ land was in low-lying areas and water was flowing from the adjacent land as a result of their irrigation activities. The judge held that the flooding of the petitioners’ land was due to activities in the adjacent land and therefore the petitioners could not claim damages by claiming that the event was caused by the leakage of water from the ash ponds. The judge therefore rejected the claim.