Telangana High Court Dismisses Plea On Jubilee Hills Nomination

A division bench of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao rejected a writ petition questioning the rejection of the nomination filed for the Jubilee Hills Assembly constituency by-election. The bench was dealing with the written plea filed by Jankadam Narsing Rao, who filed his candidacy on October 21 as per the Election Commission notification issued on October 13 for the bye election. His candidature was rejected the next day by the returning officer, who found a spelling discrepancy in the certified extract of the electoral roll attached to the nomination, particularly with regard to the entry “Lot Serial No. 812” in the Kukatpally Assembly Constituency voters’ list. The petitioner argued that the fault was minor and that the returning officer acted arbitrarily and violated the Representation of the People Act by not giving him an opportunity to correct the discrepancy before being rejected. He sought instructions to accept his candidacy and include his name in the final list of candidates for the general election. Appearing before the Election Commission, senior advocate Avinash Desai argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 imposes a specific bar on challenging any aspect of the election process other than the election petition. He argued that improper rejection of a candidacy was one of the available grounds for challenging the election result under Section 100 of the Act, but that this could only be done before an appropriate court after the election. Agreeing with these views, the bench observed that examination and rejection of nomination papers are part of the election process and do not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The panel relied on the Supreme Court decision, which stated that objections to rejection of candidacy should be made only through election petitions. Stating that no case had been filed for interference, the bench rejected the petition for writ, observing that the petitioner’s only remedy was to pursue an election petition in accordance with the legal scheme.

HC aims to take quick action in case of electric shock

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGNPDCL) to take immediate action against a representative seeking ex-gratia compensation for the death of a young woman who died due to electrocution. The judge took up the writ petition filed by Chukka Haribabu, the parent of the deceased. The petitioner has sought ex-gratia payment under the “Per Capita” category for the accidental death of his daughter due to electrocution, challenging the inaction of TGNPPDCL officials in not responding to his representation. The petitioner alleged that the authorities did not take any steps regarding representation. The respondent sought directions to the authorities to consider his plea and release the amount of grace as per the applicable policy. After going through the material on record, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka directed the authorities concerned to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks in accordance with law.

HC grants preliminary bail to officer in paddy purchase case

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to an agriculture extension officer accused of dereliction of duty in connection with allegations of large-scale irregularities in the paddy procurement process at Shyampet in Warangal district. The judge was listening to the criminal complaint filed by Bochu Archana. The petitioner sought protection from arrest in a case arising from an alleged fraud involving the creation of fictitious farmer profiles and the diversion of government funds to real growers. According to the prosecution, some officials of the Civil Supply Corporation and local paddy purchasing centers allegedly colluded with private individuals to manipulate the online purchasing system, show fake purchases and divert payments to improper accounts. The petitioner was accused of handing over the paddy purchase token book to the responsible centre, thereby enabling misuse of official credentials contrary to the prescribed procedure. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations against him did not amount to criminal misconduct but merely negligence in the performance of duties. It was also claimed that a departmental investigation was initiated and that he continued to work in the same office. The judge observed that although the petitioner had compromised his responsibilities, there was no material to show that he had fabricated records or personally misappropriated government funds. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the judge deemed it appropriate to release him on conditional bail.