Hyderabad, December 25: Justice Naushad Ali of the AP High Court on Friday ordered notice to the Censor Board and the makers of a biopic on the controversial Nithyananda Swamy. The Rajendra Prasad-starrer, ‘Ayyarre’, is alleged to be a film in the making inspired from life of the swamy whose alleged sexual escapades with film actress Ranjitha were shown in some media.
The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by K P Sailendra, a representative of Nithyananda Swamy,
contending that the film was likely to affect the reputation of the Swamy and, therefore, should be banned from being produced and exhibited. To a pointed question by Justice Naushad Ali as to who Nithyananda was, the counsel for the central government said he was a religious leader. The judge also wanted to find out as to how the petitioner would conclude that the film was against the reputation of the petitioner. It was answered that it was the case of the filmmaker that it was based on the life of Nithyananda.
Govt’s inaction in land allotment case questioned
A division bench of the AP High Court comprising Justice G Raghuram and Justice Ramesh Ranganathan on Friday found actions of the state government short of its expectations in the matter relating to the allotment of house sites in the Zaheerabad Municipality.
It may be recalled that the bench was dealing with a public interest writ petition dealing with the illegalities in the allotment of lands and how the municipal chairmen and others had allotted lands to their own kith and kin. Earlier, when the court wanted specific details on the action taken against the erring officials, the government placed the chairperson under suspension but quickly revoked it.
The bench, speaking through Justice Raghuram, wondered whether the government was deliberately deceiving the court. It voiced the intent to order a probe. The bench also wondered why IAS officer Pushpa Subramanyam was not present when she was required to be in the court to answer various allegations.
Attorney General’s explanation sought in tribunal case
A division bench of the AP High Court comprising Justice V Eswaraiah and Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar on Friday ordered notice to the Attorney General on being informed of how a member of the Administrative Tribunal had passed an order against the specific directions of the High Court.
The bench was dealing with the efforts of one Veerendra Varma who had earlier moved the service tribunal
for amendment of the service rules. The matter was taken right up to the Supreme Court. He lost at all levels. However, on the permission to make a representation to the government, he gave fresh lease to the claims. In the interregnum, he gained two promotions which led to a fresh litigation. When the High Court directed that the promotion be set aside the state government reverted him. To the surprise of the division bench this order of reversion made in accordance with the directions of the high court was suspended by the Tribunal. The irked bench wanted the Attorney General to be in court on February 4 to explain the situation.
Plea against online tender process dismissed
Justice R Subash Reddy of the AP High court on Friday dismissed a writ petition filed by CI India questioning the tenders floated by the AP Transco for supply of 20000 megawatt power. The challenge was mainly on the ground
that the tenders were to be responded to on the web. The petitioner complained that the website did not have the necessary bandwidth and memory space. The said allegation was denied by the authorities. The judge accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The bench found that the petitioner failed to establish the allegations.
Election petition against minister dismissed
Justice KC Bhanu of the AP High Court on Friday dismissed the election petition against minister for civil supplies Sridhar Babu. Madhukar, an unsuccessful candidate from Mantani Assembly constituency in Karimnagar district, filed the petition against the minister. The judge held that allegations of electoral malpractices, including excess spending of money were not proved in the petition.
–Agencies