Hyderabad: A petition has been filed in the Telangana High Court challenging a government order nominating Mohd Azharuddin and Prof. M. Kodandaram as MLCs under Governor’ quota. The petitioner, Syed Hyder Raza Naqvi, sought a stay on the order issued on April 26, alleging that there were legal and procedural irregularities. According to the petitioner, nominations under the Governor’s quota were reserved for individuals with distinguished service in literature, science, art, co-operative movement or social service, and that the current nomination did not strictly adhere to these criteria. Petitioner’s counsel Venkata Raghu Mannampalli urged the High Court to suspend the GO with immediate effect and also restrain authorities from administering the oath of office to the nominees pending the final disposal of the writ petition.
High Court Move Challenging Appointment of B. Shivadhar Reddy as State Security Adviser
Hyderabad: A petition has been filed before the Telangana High Court seeking a stay on the government’s appointment of retired IPS officer B. Shivadhar Reddy as state security adviser (SSA). The plea challenged GO 559 April 29, issued a day before Shivadhar Reddy retired. As per the GO, the post was accorded the status and rank equivalent to that of the Chief Secretary.
Dhangopal Rao filed this plea through interim application in the main writ petition, which is pending in the court against the temporary appointment of the same officer as DGP/head of police force (HoPF) by violating the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark ‘Prakash Singh vs Union of India’ case.
He stated that the fresh appointment as SSA was a measure of protocol and ceremonial precedence. The GO provided that the SSA shall rank at “Article 18” of the State Table of Warrant of Precedence, as a personal status to the dignitary for the duration of the term of office. The plea urges the High Court to grant an interim stay on the GO and pass appropriate directions in the interest of justice. The matter is expected to come up for hearing shortly.
Relief for Telangana Govt as High Court Suspends BIFR Order on 891-Acre IDPL Land
Hyderabad: In the long-pending dispute over the land of 891.38 acres that has been taken back from the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited(IDPL), the Telangana High Court on Tuesday gave relief to the state government by issuing interim suspension of an order dated February 2, 2008, of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR). The BIFR in 2008 had directed the Rangareddy collector to withdraw land resumption proceedings initiated against IDPL.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka pointed out several reasons for suspending the BIRF order. The first one was that the order was passed without issuing notices to the collector. According to the provisions, BIFR could suspend land resumption for two years initially, extendable by one year at a time, up to a maximum of seven years. After this period, the proceedings could resume from the stage at which they were suspended. Nearly two decades have passed after the BIFR order was issued. The BIFR was repealed in the meanwhile, and the matter never went to the National Company Law Tribunal.
The state had acquired large extents of land in Kukatpally, Balanagar, and surrounding areas in the early 1960s. In 1994, about 891 acres were transferred to IDPL, a Central public sector undertaking, through a conveyance deed for establishing a pharmaceutical industry.
Subsequently, the state alleged that IDPL had violated the terms of allotment by attempting to lease out parts of the land and buildings to private entities. Acting on this, the collector initiated resumption proceedings on January 27, 2008, and the land was taken back and handed over to the State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (now TGIIC). On the request of IDPL, the BIFR issued withdrawal directions to the collector.
The state contended that under the Sick Industrial Companies Act 1985, any suspension of proceedings could only be temporary, whereas the BIFR order effectively stalled the resumption indefinitely.
The Judge observed that the conveyance deed was for a public purpose, specifically mentioning the pharmaceutical industry, and did not grant absolute ownership rights akin to a private sale. It held that land allotted for establishing an industry cannot be diverted for commercial leasing to third parties.
The court noted that the state did not specify in the conveyance deed that the IDPL could lease out the subject land to generate revenue for day-to-day operations.
The court noted that it was unable to accept the contention that leasing buildings or property to third parties for generating income to meet day-to-day expenses would further the objective of establishing and running a pharmaceutical industry. If such an arrangement were contemplated as a normal course of business for the establishment and running of the industry, the State would not have omitted to include an express clause permitting such leasing in the Conveyance Deed itself.
Holding that the state had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, the Court ruled that irreparable prejudice would be caused if relief was not granted. Accordingly, it suspended the BIFR orders.
High Court Halts 50-Year Mining Activity in Garla Reserve Forest
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court upheld the forest department’s efforts in restraining the five-decade-long barytes and dolomite mining activities in the Garla reserve forest region of Khammam district. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, passing the order, also criticised the administrative lapse by revenue authorities in wrongly classifying reserve forest land as government land, which led to extensive environmental damage in the Garla forest region with the mining activities in and around 760 acres since 1962.
The judge dismissed a batch of petitions filed by several mining companies and labor contract companies, which have challenged the forest department’s efforts since 2009 in restraining mining activities. The judge dismissed another batch of petitions filed by some mining companies, which had challenged the validity of report by the Survey of India. The report had declared that the area in which mining activities have been carried on for decades together fell in the Garla reserve forest region.
The matter revolved hundreds of acres in Pocharam and Sripuram of Garla mandal, where mining leases for barytes and dolomite were granted over decades based on revenue records that described the land as “sarkari” (government) land and not forest.
The forest department maintained that the area formed part of the Garla protected reserve forest, notified as early as August 17, 1951, by the then Nizam government. The Garla reserve forest region is an extent of 44,582 acres of which 762 acres had been leased out for mining purposes, with wrong classification by revenue officials.
The dispute intensified in 2009 when forest officials issued notices directing an immediate halt to mining operations, citing the absence of mandatory approvals under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. In 2013, the High Court directed the Survey of India to carry out a detailed survey to demarcate the forest boundaries in accordance with the 1951 notification.
Acting on the court’s directive, the agency conducted a field survey using village maps and boundaries of the villages. According to additional advocate-general Imran Khan, the report made it clear that nearly the mining lease area of about 762 acres fell within the notified forest, leaving only a negligible extent of 2.77 acres outside.
Imran Khan refuted the allegations raised by the mining companies on the survey, and submitted that it was conducted transparently, with due notice to all stakeholders, and found no infirmity in its conclusions.
Relying on the survey report and submissions of the AAG, the court held that the land was unequivocally forest land as per the 1951 notification. It ruled that mining leases granted on the premise that the land was non-forest land were based on a fundamental misconception arising from incorrect classification by revenue authorities.
The petitioners contended that they had been conducting mining operations for decades, in some cases with environmental clearances, and alleged arbitrary action by the forest department. The court found these submissions untenable in light of the conclusive survey findings and the statutory mandate to protect forest land. It also noted that several leases had expired over time and that mining had not commenced in certain cases.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
