HC declines to hear PIL on women’s free bus travel; directs to register it as a writ petition

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court’s division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti on Wednesday directed the registry to register the PIL as a writ petition filed by A. Harinder Kumar aggrieved by the government’s decision in providing free travel to women in RTC buses on ground he himself averred in PIL petition at paragraph 3.1 of affidavit stating he is “partly personally interested in this matter”.

The petitioner said he, his wife and children are, though, enjoying the free ride in the RTC buses, while going from home to office, but are facing inconvenience due to overcrowding.

The CJ bench opined the PIL petition has no “public interest”. ‘Moreover, petitioner is personally aggrieved by the State’s action because he himself, his wife and children are facing hardships during travel from home to their place of work in buses, as influx of passengers in buses has increased tremendously after free travel was extended to women. Hence, the PIL plea is converted into a writ petition.

The bench was adjudicating the PIL filed by Harinder Kumar, a private employee from Bandlaguda. He sought a direction to suspend GO 47 dated December 8, 2023 permitting free bus travel to women. It directed the registry to convert the plea as wp and send it to proper division bench for further proceedings.

Batch of writs in HC seeking direction to govt to hold panchayat elections

Hearing before single judge today

The high court’s single bench comprising Justice K. Sarath heard a writ# filed by Thokkala Anil Kumar, Sarpanch, Talveda gram panchayat, Nirmal district, seeking a direction to the government to continue him in the post till the State Election Commission holds gram panchayat elections after the term of sarpanches expires on January 31; but the judge dismissed the plea.

Two writs were filed by A Mallesham, president, Telangana SarpanchulaRastra Committee, Hanamkonda, and G. Vijaya, sarpanch, Kanchanapally gram panchayat, Raghunathpally mandal, Jangaon district, aggrieved by the inaction of the State government and the SEC in holding panchayat elections. The petitioners are aggrieved by the government decision to hand over the panchayats’ administration to special officers.

The petitioners contend that the SEC is obligated to complete the panchayat poll process before the sarpanches’ term, but they failed to do so; the State intends to hand over the GP administration to special officers in violation of Articles 243 E and 243 K of the Constitution, besides being contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. They stated that they have spent personal money running into lakhs on development activities in their respective gram panchayats; State is obligated to reimburse the money by State Finance Commission, which it has not done.

Moreover, the State says it will hold GP elections after the Lok Sabha polls. This is challenged in the petitions.

The petitioners seek a direction to continue them as sarpanches till GP elections are held. They opposed handing over of GP administration to special officers.

Hearing on 'Vyuham' adjourned for today

The Telangana High Court’s division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar, on Wednesday held another hearing on film 'Vyuham' directed by Ram Gopal Varma.

Aggrieved by the single judge orders which quashed the clearance certificate issued by the Censor Board to the movie, Dasari Kiran Kumar, the proprietor of 'Ramadhutha Creations', which produced it, filed an appeal in the bench.

Counsel for appellant A Venkatesh submitted that a political party is not a juristic entity; therefore has no locus standi to file the writ against the film.

He contended that a political party cannot file a writ in case of defamation of its president.

Earlier, following a petition filed by the TDP, which had complained that the movie was made to defame it and its president N. Chandrababu Naidu, the single judge Surepalli Nanda on January 22 set aside the clearance certificate and asked the revision committee to take further action.

The appellant's senior counsel A Venkatesh on Wednesday argued for about three hours. As the court timings ended, the bench adjourned the hearing to Thursday.