Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday considered a judicial appeal by the Central Government on the question whether the High Court could order renewal of a passport for 10 years without referring to the criminal case pending against the applicant. Earlier, a single judge had directed the passport authorities to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by Mahendra Kumar Agarwal to renew his passport for ten years without referring to a criminal case registered by the Madhapur police. Deputy Solicitor General Praveen Kumar argued that the single judge should have appreciated that in exercise of the power under Section 22A of the Passport Act, a notification was issued saying that a person against whom criminal proceedings are pending You must obtain permission from the magistrate. in question before traveling. Senior advocate BS Prasad, appearing for Agarwal, argued that the court had not passed any order taking cognizance of the matter. In this case, not renewing the passport violated the fundamental rights of the applicant. Accordingly, the panel on Tuesday modified the orders passed by the single judge and directed that the petitioner not leave the country without obtaining permission from the concerned court.

HC relief for Sirpur Paper Mills

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court filed a writ petition alleging disruption in the functioning of M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd by Truck and Bus Owners Welfare Association. The judge was hearing a plea presented by the company. The petitioner’s case was that the company founded in 1938 and engaged in the manufacture of paper and related products, was one of the leading paper mills in the country. The petitioner claimed that the members of the Truck and Bus Owners Welfare Association were individual truck owners who were responsible for transporting the trucks from the factory premises to various destinations at agreed freight rates. The association representatives demanded a sharp increase in transport costs, something that was unattainable. The petitioner claimed that the association members disrupted transport services for almost 20 days in March, causing serious losses to the company. Earlier, the same petitioner filed a writ petition when trucks carrying the finished product were not allowed to leave the factory premises and the High Court directed Komaram district deputy superintendent of police Bheem Asifabad and police officer Kagaznagar police station to Provide police assistance to the petitioners for transportation of their products by road by trucks from their factory premises beyond Sirpur town until further order. Senior advocate Vedula Srinivas appearing for the petitioner contended that the present writ petition was filed when the members of the association were not allowing vehicles carrying raw material to deliver it to the paper mills and were not allowing empty trucks to leave the factory. after childbirth. The lead lawyer argued that this would stop production at the paper mills, which would not only affect their business but also affect the livelihood of nearly 2,500 families who depend on the paper mills. Accordingly, Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed the Komaram Bheem Asifabad DSP Kagaznagar SHO to provide police assistance for the movement of trucks carrying raw materials to the factory premises from various places and for the departure of such trucks and against the blocking in any way at the factory gate or in the municipality of the petitioner by illegally parking their vehicles.

The request for reparation is dismissed

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compensation and employment due to submergence of the petitioners’ land as a result of the 2012 water leak from the north ash ponds of KTPS Phases 1 and 2. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by G. Rama Krishna and three others who maintain that their land was not usable for agricultural purposes since 2012. The petitioners alleged that despite several representations to the authorities, no paid them no compensation. The petitioners’ lawyers submitted a joint inspection report of a committee constituted by the district collector in accordance with the directions of the court. The judge, after examining the report of the environmental engineer, observed that the report indicated that the petitioners’ lands were situated in low-lying areas and that water was flowing from the adjacent lands due to their irrigation activities. The judge held that the submergence of the petitioners’ land was due to activities on the adjacent land and therefore the petitioners could not claim compensation by alleging that the event had been caused by the seepage of water from the ash ponds. Consequently, the judge dismissed the writ appeal.