Hyderabad: Telangana High Court Justice B Vijayasena Reddy on Monday observed that the Centre’s decision to reject PVB Ganesh’s pardon was without application of mind. Ganesh was associated with the Maoist party at the time of the killing of Magunta Subbarama Reddy, the then MP of Ongole. The judge was dealing with a petition challenging the Center’s denial of pardon to Ganesh on the gravity of the crime and its impact on the pending cases against other accused. Earlier in the case, a division bench granted interim bail and directed the Center to consider her case for pardon based on her reforms. It is said that Ganesh spent 28 years in Cherlapally Central Jail after his conviction and obtained three bachelor’s degrees. The judge ruled that such arguments by the Center clearly show that the authorities did not use their minds. Deputy Solicitor General, Gadi Praveen Kumar, opposed granting any relief saying the accused were involved in serious crimes and sought three weeks’ time to file a counter. After looking at the records, the judge extended the interim bail granted by the Division Bench for three weeks and directed the Center to file a counter affidavit within that time.
Petition to the High Court to dismiss the case against Lamakan
Telangana High Court Judge Juvwadi Sridevi heard a petition filed in the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri court seeking quashing of the criminal case against the organizers of the ‘Cinephiles Organisation’. The petitioner has claimed that the organization has been showing thoughtful films at places like Lamakan to promote the public interest film movement globally. It is the case of the petitioners that they were implicated in a criminal case in January 2024 during the screening of the award-winning documentary Ram Ke Naam (In the Name of God). The lawyer for the petitioner argued that the police had registered a false case for screening the CBFC-certified documentary which had won national awards and several international honours. It was argued that the complaint and charge sheet were baseless and vague. The judge, after hearing counsel, ordered the issue of notice to the original complainant and produced the organizer before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri court. However, their presence in the trial court is not necessary until the court deems it necessary. Now this case will be heard on February 4.
HC takes up petition against state on fee supp
The Telangana High Court will hear a writ petition challenging the failure of the state social welfare department and other authorities not to release tuition fees under the government’s tuition fee reimbursement scheme. Justice T Vinod Kumar accepted a writ petition filed by Srinidhi Institute of Science and Technology, Yamanapet, Ghatkesar, stating that the state is not releasing tuition fee amount payable to students belonging to SC/ST, EBC, BC and minority communities. From the academic year 2018-19 to 2024-25. The petitioner has argued that this delay is arbitrary, illegal and a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The petitioner further contended that the action of the State is contrary to the major government orders. Citing GOs, the petitioner is seeking immediate release of outstanding tuition fee amount with interest at 18% per annum. The public prosecutor asked for more time to file the reply. Accordingly, the judge posted the case for further hearing.
Notice to first bank about account freeze
Telangana High Court Judge Moushumi Bhattacharya has ordered notice to IDFC First Bank and others in a writ petition alleging illegal freezing of bank accounts. The case revolves around the complaint of a person who lost funds while using the Telegram app. It is alleged that the said amount went to the petitioner’s account. Justice Ishan Amit Mehta, is hearing a writ petition filed by an independent counsel alleging that the respondent bank illegally froze his bank account and placed a lien on more than the disputed transaction amount. It is alleged that the same action is being taken without any prior information/information to the petitioner and is unconstitutional. The petitioner also alleges that the provincial police administration has repeatedly asked the petitioner to appear in person. After hearing the petitioner’s lawyer, the judge issued a notice and scheduled the case for further hearing.