Justice T Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday set aside the appointments of K Kathyayani and Baddipadaga Raji Reddy as members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions for Rangareddy and Hyderabad districts, respectively.
The court ruled that the appointments, made pursuant to notifications dated August 22, 2022, and GO 28 dated August 16, 2023, were invalid due to procedural discrepancies. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Kondapuram Saritha, challenging the appointments of Kathyayani and Raji Reddy. Saritha contended that the appointments were made without following proper procedures and in violation of Supreme Court directives.
She asserted that she had secured the highest marks, 57.5 out of 100, in the selection process for the vacant posts of members in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Saritha alleged that the selection process, which included a written test and an oral interview, did not adhere to the qualifications prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the petitioner referred to a specific Supreme Court case, “The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Vs. Dr Mahindra Bhaskar Limaye and others,” where the court directed the government to amend rules regarding the qualifications of members in Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. The Supreme Court mandated that candidates must possess specific qualifications and undergo a selection process consisting of a written test and a viva voce interview.
Counsel argued that the respondents, in this case, had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions and had appointed individuals who were less meritorious than the petitioner. Responding to the allegations, counsel for the respondents claimed that their clients were more qualified than the petitioner. After considering the arguments, Justice Madhavi Devi concluded that the appointments were indeed in violation of the Supreme Court’s directives and set them aside.
Gandra seeks quashing of land grab case
Former MLA Gandra Venkata Ramana Reddy and two others have filed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against them by the Bhupalpally police. The proceedings, registered on January 16, pertain to alleged offences under Sections 386, 406, 409, 420, 447 and 506, read with 120(B) of the IPC, and Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1954, as well as Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
The petitioners, represented by their counsel, contested the validity of the proceedings, labelling them as illegal, untenable, and gross abuse of the legal process. They argued that they had not committed any of the alleged offences. The proceedings followed a private complaint lodged by Nagavelli Rajalingamurthy under Section 200 of the Cr.PC, alleging a conspiracy to illegally occupy two acres of land in Sy.No.209 of Pulluriramaiahpally village, Bhupalpally mandal in Jayashankar Bhupalpally district. The land in question is identified as Cheruvu Shikam land.
According to the complaint, the accused began construction on the land, despite it being designated for cultivation purposes and not being allotted by the government. The complaint alleged that Ramana Reddy also began construction of a temple and a commercial complex on the disputed property. The petitioners raised objections to the complaint and pointed to the absence of an initial FIR. They claimed that the complaint was filed with “unclean hands” and was belated and hence deserved to be stayed.