HYDERABAD : Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka on Wednesday slammed BRS president and former CM K Chandrasekhar Rao for asking Justice L Narasimha Reddy to step down from the Commission that is investigating the power purchase agreements made during the BRS regime.
Addressing the media at Gandhi Bhavan, Vikramarka said that they have not constituted an inquiry commission out of political vengeance but based on the suggestions of a former energy minister on the floor of the Legislative Assembly.
“The inquiry commission is an autonomous body, and the government is not interfering in the investigation procedure of the commission. There was no reason for KCR to find fault with the very appointment of the commission,” the deputy CM, who is also holds the energy portfolio, said.
Claiming that the Congress government is committed to delivering the promise of crop loan waiver up to Rs 2 lakh, Vikramarka said that the government has issued directions to the bankers during the State Level Bankers Committee meeting not to take coercive action against the loanees as the state will be waiving off the loans by August 15.
He also said that the state government is committed to providing loans worth Rs 1 lakh crore to women self-help groups (SHGs).
HC quashes proceedings against TVV members
Justice K Sujana of the Telangana High Court quashed the proceedings against Kothapally Mahesh and four other members of the Telangana Vidyarthi Vedika (TVV) in a case related to a protest organised by them, demanding the release of Prof GN Sai Baba and Varavara Rao, who were arrested by the Maharashtra government.
They were charged under IPC Sections 143, 341, 290, and 186 read with Section 149 based on a case filed by Sub-Inspector G Ravi at Saifabad Police Station on May 17, 2019. According to the complaint, the TVV members had organised the protest without taking prior permission and it allegedly obstructed the free flow of traffic and caused public nuisance. The police took 31 individuals into custody during the protest.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations were baseless and aimed at suppressing the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Justice Sujana, after reviewing the case details, concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support the allegations against the petitioners.