Telangana government gets 4 weeks to respond to writ against Ordinance on GPs
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed the state government to submit its response to writ petitions challenging the controversial Ordinance No. 3 of 2024 merging 51 gram panchayats into municipalities within four weeks. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao was hearing the writ petitions filed by G Padmavathi, former sarpanch of Shamshabad mandal, and four other former sarpanches from various villages in Shamshabad mandal challenging the Ordinance amending the schedule of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, to facilitate the merger of rural GPs into urban municipalities. The bench issued notices to the principal secretaries of the General Administration department and Municipal Administration and Urban Development department, (Legal and Legislative Affairs), MAUD director, GHMC commissioner, and the district panchayat officer of Rangareddy district.
The petitioners argue that the ordinance is detrimental to rural communities and label the government’s promise of urbanisation and development as an “eyewash.” The GPs affected by the merger include Chinna Golkonda, Pedda Golkonda, Bahadurguda, Hameedullahnagar and Rasheedguda in Shamshabad mandal. The petitioners claim that these villages remain deeply rural in nature, and urbanisation would disturb their natural environment. The high court adjourned the matter for four weeks, pending the submission of counter affidavits from the state authorities.
PIL questions ‘Chabutra’, ‘Romeo’ operations by cops
The Telangana High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the state government — represented by the principal secretary (Home), the DGP and the Hyderabad Police Commissioner — seeking its response to a PIL filed challenging the legality of “Mission Chabutra” and “Operation Romeo”, as well as midnight counselling sessions conducted by the police. The PIL, filed by social activist SQ Masood, a resident of Basharathnagar, Hyderabad, claims that these police operations were being conducted without legal sanction and infringe on constitutional rights. Masood requested the court to declare these actions, including random searches and alleged public harassment, as illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. He also urged the court to direct the police to stop these operations and follow proper legal procedures under the CrPC and the BNSS.
Masood expressed concern about police-imposed restrictions on businesses, including the forced closure of shops, hotels, small businesses, and street vendors between 10.30 pm and 11 pm and contended that this was in direct contradiction of GO 15, issued by the Labour department on May 21, 2015. He further claimed that the police were also subjecting commuters to unjustified frisking in violation of Articles 14, 19 (right to freedom), and 21 of the Constitution. After reviewing the PIL, a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao, refused to grant interim relief but issued notices to the authorities.