Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict directions issued by a single judge concerning the affairs of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a batch of leave petitions filed by S.A. Amberpet Cricket Club, Youth Cricket Club and others. The appeals challenged the order of a single judge, wherein the court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an IPS officer to probe the administrative, managerial and financial affairs of the HCA, under the continued supervision of former High Court judge Justice P. Naveen Rao (retd) as a single-member committee (SMC).
The single-judge order was founded upon a series of reports submitted by several court-appointed committees and administrators, including Justice Anil R. Dave, Justice G.V. Seethapathy, Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakru, Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Naveen Rao, which pointed out administrative and financial irregularities within the HCA warranting investigation by an agency.
The single judge, in a concurrent finding, observed that similar concerns surfaced before successive committees and supervisory bodies over the years, indicating that the controversy had acquired “structural depth” warranting judicial intervention.
The SMC was further empowered to conduct league competitions, oversee player selection, appoint coaches, selectors and support staff, undertake structural reforms, and supervise the overall functioning of the association.
Since the present appellants were not parties before the single judge, they filed leave petitions to challenge the order. After hearing the arguments, the panel directed the HCA to file its counter-affidavit in the special leave petition and adjourned the matter.
2. HC refuses to quash customs action
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court refused to quash Customs proceedings against a passenger found carrying undeclared electronic goods worth over ₹45 lakh.
In a writ petition, Ruknuddin Abbas alleged that CISF personnel unlawfully detained him for over eight hours after he arrived from Dubai and illegally seized his baggage without authority under the Customs Act. He contended that the subsequent Customs proceedings were vitiated as the initial interception and seizure were conducted by the CISF, which, according to him, lacked statutory powers to undertake customs enforcement.
The respondents contended that the petitioner was intercepted outside the customs area after he attempted to hand over two boxes containing electronic goods valued at ₹45.6 lakh to another individual.
They argued that the CISF merely conducted a security interception under heightened airport security measures and handed over the petitioner, the goods and the intended recipient to the local police and thereafter to Customs.
The Customs authorities maintained that the actual seizure was carried out by duly empowered Customs officers after following the procedure prescribed under the Customs Act.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka held that the CISF acted within its statutory powers to conduct security screening and preventive checks at the airport.
3. Balka Suman gets bail in ‘militant activities’ case
The Telangana High Court granted bail to BRS former legislator Balka Suman, who spent 20 days in judicial custody after being booked for allegedly making provocative statements.
The case against Suman stemmed from allegations that he urged a crowd to commit “militant activities” against Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). Pursuant to the complaint, an FIR was registered against him at the Banjara Hills police station under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The petitioner argued that he merely encouraged people at a party meeting to protest and that the absence of any immediate, measurable impact failed to prima facie establish mala fide intent.
The government opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner had multiple pending cases and, being a powerful individual, could influence witnesses if released.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
