High Court agrees to hear BJP plea in poachgate case

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, on Monday agreed to hear the writ appeal filed by the State BJP seeking a stay on the investigation into four TRS MLAs poaching case.

Chinnolla Naresh Reddy, counsel for BJP, mentioned the case before the bench, to be heard urgently as the investigation is not going in a fair manner.

Advocate-General Banda Shivananda Prasad requested the bench to hear the case either on Wednesday or Thursday, stating that as the State has engaged by a senior counsel (from Supreme Court), all documents are to be furnished to him.

Naresh Reddy mentioned vehemently that serious allegations were made against the petitioner; it is an issue of national ramification. On Friday itself I was about to mention but did not do so as it will be inconvenient to court as it was not numbered; now it is numbered. I request the court to consider and hear the case as early as possible.

Consenting to his request, the bench agreed to hear the case on Tuesday and directed the Advocate General to make submissions on November 15.

ACB court junks bail plea of accused

Meanwhile, in a crucial development in the poaching case, ACB Special Court, Nampally, on Monday rejected the bail petition of the accused.

The public prosecutor on behalf of the police brought to the attention of the court that if bail is granted during the investigation, it will be hindered. The court consenting to the submission of PP dismissed the bail petition.

The accused, Nanda Kumar, Simhayaji, and Ramachandra Bharati, are currently in Chanchalguda jail.

HC seeks more info from govt on the appointment of TSPSC members

The Telangana High Court division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, on Monday heard the public interest litigation filed by Vinayak Reddy, a retired professor of Kakatiya University, Warangal.

The petitioner alleged that to declare the appointment of respondents Ramavath Dhan Singh, Prof BandiLinga Reddy, Sumithra Anand Tanoba, Karam Ravinder Reddy, Dr. Aravilli Chandrasekhar Rao, and R. Satyanarayana as members of the Telangana State Public Service Commission, vide GO108 dated May 19, 2021, was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Regulations section 32 A and 32 B of TSPSC regulations.

CJ Bhuyan queried how many submitted resumes responding to the newspaper advertisement and the notification. He pointed out that a good number of applications were received for an appointment..What was the process undertaken to shortlist the candidates?

Advocate-General Banda Shivananda Prasad informed the court that in fact there was no notification, will take instructions from the government and file a counter-affidavit.

He said the appointment of TSPSC members comes within the parameters of TSPSC regulations. The government had to take up appointments as there was a public uproar about filling the vacancies.

The bench, after going through the confidential report furnished by the Advocate-General pertaining to the appointment of six TSPSC members and chairman, directed him to furnish more information on the appointments covering the above points. CJ Bhuyan observed " we all are part of the public. we want a robust Public Service Commission as there is public activity.."

During the hearing, R Satyanarayana, one of the six TSPSC members,

through his senior counsel, Sudershan Reddy informed the court that he is a newspaper reporter and a publisher who brought out three books on the environment and its effect on villages and agriculture. The senior counsel said Satyayarayana had done research on the environment and water; the government, considering his research and books, had selected him for the post.

CJ Bhuyan, while intervening in Reddy's arguments, questioned whether Satyanarayana had applied for the post or not?.. Why did the government choose only him when there are so many other eminent persons in the field?

S Satyam Reddy, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the appointment of all six TSPCS members was a violation of Regulation 3(2)(a) and 3(2)(b) of TSPSC regulations. Regulation 3(1) says that all members appointed to TSPSC should be eminent persons possessing a high degree of caliber, competence, and integrity. Regulation 3(2)(a) says, one-half of members shall be those who have served as officers of All-India Services, Central Services, or State Civil Services; Regulation 3(2)(b) says the remaining members shall be from among eminent people with a background in academics/ management/law/science & technology/social science, whereas the six members appointed do not possess any of the quality or qualification cited. Hence, the petitioner sought suspension of GO appointing the six members.

The respondents, Ramavath Dhan Singh, who retired from the Public Health Department of GHMC as engineer-in-chief, Linga Reddy, was a professor in a private engineering college, Sumithra, who worked as a second-grade teacher in a school, Karam, who retired as deputy tahsildar (Revenue), Dr. Aravilli is a graduate in ayurvedic medicine and Satyanarayana was a newspaper reporter and former MLC.

None of the members have neither served as officers of All-India Services, Central Services, or State Civil Services nor do they possess eminence, caliber, competence, and integrity making them eligible for the post, Satyam Reddy argued.

The bench reiterated that the court wanted to know whether there was any selection process preceding the appointment of respondents; as to how they were shortlisted.

The court asked the A-G to file a comprehensive affidavit challenging the appointment of TSPSC members and adjourned the case to November 28.