T stir: HC seeks to know action taken against arsonists

HYDERABAD: The PIL bench of the AP High Court on Tuesday asked the state government to submit within two weeks a list of persons against whom criminal action or investigation was initiated for acts of violence or arson during the Telangana agitation earlier in the year.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Nisar Ahmad Kakru and Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar was dealing with a writ petition filed by J Narayana Swami, who moved the court seeking directions to the government to ensure that strikes and bandhs did not affect normal life in the state.
The petitioner complained that the agitators had even prevented the functioning of courts including the Ranga Reddy district courts He pointed out that great hardships were being caused due to frequent bandh calls which resulted in closure of educational institutions and also essential services like petrol bunks.
HC reprieve for Ramoji Rao: A two-judge bench of the AP High Court comprising the chief Justice and Justice Vilas Afzalpurkar on Tuesday suspended the order of the Lok Ayukta requiring Ramoji Rao of Eenadu Publications and one of its reporters to explain why Eenadu had published a factually incorrect information about the ferry boats in the Hussain Sagar lake.
The Telugu daily alleged in a news item that the boats used for ferrying tourists in the lake were unsafe, poorly managed and hardly repaired.
The director of AP Tourism Development Corporation submitted a report to the contrary and said that the reports lacked credibility. Based on the same, the Lok Ayukta issued the impugned notice. The writ petition stated that the Lok Ayukta had no jurisdiction to deal with the media.
Hearing against Telugu daily adjourned: A bench of the AP High Court comprising Justices G Raghuram and P Durga Prasad adjourned to July 27 a contempt case against Telugu daily Andhra Jyothi. It may be recalled that A S Lakshmi, a practising advocate, filed the contempt case contending that the Telugu daily published an article on May 16 about 14 names being sent for appointment of High Court judges. She said that the content of the said article was contemptuous.
The bench had appointed three senior counsels to assist it as the registry had objected to the filing of the case as no prior sanction was obtained from the advocate general as required under the law.
The advocate stated that the advocate general's name was included in the list of 14 and was thus unable to grant or refuse sanction. The bench enlarged the scope of the assistance sought and said the lawyers would also address the court on whether the content complained against was contemptuous and if so what were the charges to be.