Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court observed that closure of a criminal case does not by itself negate threat perception, and directed the state to provide security to a BRS leader from Malkajgiri. Justice E.V. Venugopal was dealing with a writ petition filed by Ragidi Laxman Reddy, a BRS candidate from the Malkajgiri Parliamentary constituency in the 2024 General Elections. The petitioner stated that he was attacked by unidentified assailants using a firearm in 2013 and that a First Information Report (FIR) was registered. It was further stated that security granted thereafter was withdrawn in August.
The petitioner contended that the case was later closed on the ground that the assailants remained undetected. The state argued that the FIR stands closed and that there is no present threat perception. The Court noted the submission and observed that mere closure of the FIR does not imply absence of threat, particularly when the assailants remain unidentified. Accordingly, the Court directed the state to provide gunmen security to the petitioner on advance payment basis and allowed the writ petition.
Demolition delay: GHMC officer summoned
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the deputy commissioner, City Central Library Circle of GHMC to appear before the Court over failure to act on a demolition speaking order concerning a property at Mitti ka Sher, Lad Bazaar. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Syed Moizuddin challenging a speaking order issued on February 20 directing demolition of an alleged unauthorised construction at Mitti ka Sher, Lad Bazaar, Hyderabad.
The petitioner contended that applications filed under Sections 455A and 455AA of the GHMC Act, seeking regularisation of the construction, were not considered prior to issuance of the demolition order. The said provisions prescribe the statutory mechanism for regularisation of unauthorised constructions, subject to scrutiny and compliance with applicable norms. The Court noted that the impugned speaking order mandated demolition of the structure within 15 days, failing which the GHMC would proceed with demolition and recover the costs. When queried whether any action followed expiry of the stipulated period, the standing counsel for GHMC sought time to obtain instructions. Recording that no steps were taken pursuant to the speaking order, the judge directed the deputy commissioner concerned to remain present on the next date of hearing to explain the inaction, and posted the matter for further hearing.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
