Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court held that mere possession of cash and pamphlets does not constitute a cognisable offence of bribery under the Indian Penal Code. She quashed the criminal proceedings against three individuals in connection with an alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct during the 2018 Assembly elections. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Annamaneni Santosh Kumar and two others. The allegations against the petitioners related to an incident on the night of November 22, 2018, when a flying squad intercepted a vehicle during routine election surveillance in Warangal. The squad discovered Rs 6.5 lakh in cash along with campaign pamphlets promoting Vaddiraju Ravichandra, a contesting candidate. Based on a confessional statement made by one of the accused, further searches led to the recovery of an additional Rs 14.96 lakh, bringing the total seized amount to over Rs 21.46 lakh. The police registered a case under IPC and the Representation of the People Act, suspecting that the cash was intended to bribe voters. The counsel for the petitioner emphasised that no money was actually distributed, and no witness had come forward claiming to have received any gratification in exchange for votes. The judge held that for such an offence to be established, the ingredients of offense — actual giving or receiving of gratification for electoral influence — must be satisfied. Since there was no evidence of actual bribery or attempted bribery, the charge under this section could not be sustained. Furthermore, the judge found procedural lapses as the matter was only being reported to the police and not submitted as a formal complaint by an authorised official, rendering the proceedings under this section legally untenable. Accordingly, the court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

Garland makers to get allotment at Gudimalkapur flower market

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the state agriculture department and other authorities to consider the representations of several original service providers for alternative allotment of spaces in the Gudimalkapur Flower Market. She, however, rejected similar claims of other petitioners who are to be in unauthorised occupation of open spaces. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Mohammed Sami and several others, who are garland service providers, seeking allotment of open spaces in Blocks 1 to 5 of the Gudimalkapur Market, where they claimed to be carrying out their livelihood by making and selling garlands. The petitioners contended that though they were identified for allotment under GO of January 12, 2011, they were not issued allotment letters and instead were subjected to eviction without due process. The authorities, however, contended that only 69 service providers were lawfully allotted spaces and that the petitioners were among 79 illegal occupants who encroached upon areas near a heritage well and the market entrance, causing congestion and violating heritage preservation norms. The judge, after considering photographs and prior proceedings, held that the petitioners re-erected illegal structures post-demolition and could not claim a right to remain. The judge permitted only 14 originally allotted service providers to be considered for alternative accommodation and granted liberty to the authorities to seek police assistance for clearing the remaining illegal encroachments.

Non revision of minimum wages by govt challenged

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara deferred hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging failure of the state government in revising and notifying the minimum wages for several scheduled employments under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The panel is dealing with a PIL filed by the Telangana Regional Trade Union Council. The petitioner complained that the state failed in issuing an order for the revised minimum wages in 68 scheduled employments over the past 12 to 16 years. The petitioner also complained that the Commissioner, Printing Stationery and Stores Purchase, failed to publish in the official Gazette five GOs already issued in 2021 for critical sectors, including Security Services, Construction and Maintenance of Roads and Building Operations, Construction of Projects including Dams and Multipurpose Projects and others. The petitioner contended that such inaction of authorities is contrary to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the principles of natural justice. It was argued that such prolonged delay and failure to notify revised wages denied thousands of workers their rightful statutory entitlements, amounting to an unfair and unjust exercise of power. The panel accordingly directed the state to file their response.

Covid-19 period medical negligence: HC orders notice

Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court will decide a writ plea seeking enforcement of directions issued by the High Court in a 2020 public interest litigation (PIL) concerning medical negligence during the Covid-19 lockdown. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by B. Mahendra and other daily-wage workers. The PIL was consequent to a tragic incident in Gadwal where a 20-year-old pregnant woman and her newborn died after being denied admission at multiple government hospitals, allegedly due to bureaucratic interpretations of admission guidelines. The court, in its earlier order, directed the state to ensure that no pregnant woman is denied emergency medical care and also instructed the authorities to consider initiating criminal proceedings against the responsible medical personnel and to compensate the family of the deceased. The petitioners in the present writ plea alleged that the state failed to comply with the 2020 court directions and contended that no action was initiated even after nearly five years. The petitioners contended that the action of the state authorities is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the Constitution. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.