Provide Security to Malkajgiri BRS Leader Despite Closure of FIR: HC

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court observed that closure of a criminal case alone does not eliminate the perception of threat and directed the state to ensure the safety of a BRS leader from Malkajgiri. Justice EV Venugopal was dealing with a writ petition filed by Ragidi Laxman Reddy, candidate of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi from Malkajgiri Parliamentary constituency in the 2024 General Elections. The applicant stated that he was attacked with a firearm by unidentified persons in 2013 and a First Information Report was prepared. It was also stated that the guarantee given later was withdrawn in August 2014. The applicant claimed that the case was later closed because the attackers could not be identified. The State maintained that the FIR was closed and there was no perceived threat present. The court noted this contention and observed that the closure of FIR does not mean that there is no threat, especially when the attackers cannot be identified. Accordingly, the Court instructed the State to ensure the security of the armed men on an advance payment basis to the applicant and accepted the written petition.

GHMC Official ordered to appear before HC for Failure to Take Action on Demolition

Justice NV Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of the City Central Library Department of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to appear before the Court for failure to act on a demolition talk order in respect of a property in Mitti ka Sher, Lad Bazar. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Syed Moizuddin challenging a gag order issued on February 20 directing the demolition of an allegedly unauthorized construction at Mitti ka Sher, Lad Bazar, Hyderabad. The petitioner alleged that applications seeking regulation of construction under Sections 455A and 455AA of the GHMC Act were not considered before the demolition order was issued. The said provisions provide for the legal mechanism for regulating unauthorized construction, subject to review and compliance with applicable norms. The impugned speaking order mandated demolition of the structure within 15 days, failing which GHMC would proceed with the demolition and recover the expenses, the court said. When asked whether any action was taken after the expiration of the stipulated period, GHMC’s standing counsel sought time to seek instructions. Noting that no steps were taken in accordance with the speaking order, the judge sent the matter to the hearing again, ordering the relevant deputy commissioner to be present on the next hearing date and explain the inaction.