HC Refuses to Stall Probe into HCA Affairs
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the directions given by a single judge in 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 GM Mohiuddin, was hearing a batch of leave petitions filed by SA Amberpet Cricket Club, Youth Cricket Club and others. On appeal, the single judge’s decision was challenged; herein, the court ordered formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an IPS officer to probe the administrative, administrative and financial affairs of the HCA, under the constant supervision of former Supreme Court judge Justice P. Naveen Rao (Retd) as a single-member committee (SMC).
The single judge order was based on a series of reports submitted by various court-appointed committees and administrators, including Justice Anil R. Dave, Justice GV Seethapathy, Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakru, Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Naveen Rao, highlighting administrative and financial irregularities within the HCA and necessitating an investigation by an agency.
The sole judge making a concurrent finding observed that similar concerns had arisen before successive committees and oversight bodies over the years; This showed that the conflict had gained “structural depth” that would require judicial intervention.
The SMC also had the authority to run league competitions, supervise player selection, appoint coaches, selectors and support staff, undertake structural reforms and oversee the general running of the association.
Since the present appellants are not parties before the single judge, they have filed leave petitions to challenge the order. After hearing the arguments, the bench directed HCA to file a counter-affidavit in the special leave petition and adjourned the matter.
2. HC refuses to cancel customs clearance
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court refused to quash the Customs investigation against a passenger carrying undeclared electronic products worth over ₹45 lakh.
In the writ petition, Ruknuddin Abbas alleged that after arriving from Dubai, CISF personnel unlawfully detained him for more than eight hours and illegally seized his luggage without permission under the Customs Act. The applicant argued that subsequent customs clearance was invalidated because the initial interception and seizure was carried out by the CISF, which, in his opinion, did not have the legal powers to undertake customs enforcement.
The respondents alleged that the petitioner was caught outside the customs area after he tried to hand over two boxes containing electronic goods worth Rs 45.6 lakh to another person.
They argued that the CISF merely carried out a security intervention under enhanced airport security measures and handed over the petitioner, the goods and the intended recipient to the local police and subsequently to the Customs.
The Customs authorities submitted that the actual seizure was carried out by duly authorized Customs officers following the procedure prescribed under the Customs Law.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka stated that the CISF acted within its legal powers to conduct security screening and preventive checks at the airport.
3. Balka Suman released on bail in ‘militant activities’ case
The Telangana High Court granted bail to former BRS MP Balka Suman, who remained in judicial custody for 20 days after her arrest for allegedly making provocative statements.
The case against Suman arose from allegations that he had incited the mob to engage in “militant activities” against Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered against him at Banjara Hills police station under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The petitioner argued that he was merely encouraging people to protest at a party meeting and that the absence of any immediate, measurable effect did not constitute prima facie malicious intent.
The government opposed the defense, arguing that the petitioner had multiple pending cases and, as a powerful person, could influence witnesses if released.
