Advocate moves Supreme Court against split | Deccan Chronicle
Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 | Last Update : 05:07 PM IST
Prayers
Prayers
 
Fajar: 5.08 am 
Zohar: 12.13 pm 
Asar: 4.16 pm 
Maghrib: 5.59 pm  
Isha: 7.07 pm
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

You are here

Advocate moves Supreme Court against split

DC | 23rd Aug 2013
Supreme Court.
Supreme Court.

Hyderabad: A Public Interest Litigation petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Centre not to proceed further with the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.

P. Venkata Krishnaiah, a practising advocate from Hyderabad, moved the apex court contending that the Centre had no power to bifurcate the state repeatedly.

He told the court that the Centre had rejected the bifurcation of the state as demanded in the years 1969 and 1972, in view of Article 371 D of the Constitution subsisting and formation of the new state of Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956 invoking Article 3, by merging the Andhra state and Telangana region which was a part of the erstwhile Hyderabad state.

He said when Telangana people demanded a separate state in 1969 and a separate Andhra state in 1972, it was not accepted by the Union government to avoid regional imbalances and inserted Article 371 (D) by amending the Constitution to provide reservations for local candidates in employment and education apart from providing some other safeguards to the people of Andhra Pradesh as a whole and thereby, the demand for a separate Telangana or Andhra was settled.

He told the court that without verifying the legal and factual matrix, the Congress made an announcement on July 30 following the resolution of its working committee that Telangana state would be carved out from the existing state of AP.

The petitioner urged the court to intervene in the matter as the Centre does not have the authority to exercise the power invoking Article 3 of the Constitution as long as Article 371-D and the consequential Presidential order issued under Article was in force.

PIL filed on state division

A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the AP High Court on Thursday seeking a direction to the Union government to restrain all proceedings on bifurcation of the state till matters relating to assets and liabilities, water, revenue, employment, power and irrigation, health, educational, sociological and cultural issues and also the capital of the new state are decided.
Valavala Suryanarayana, a resident of Tadepalligudem town in West Godavari district moved the PIL.

Bail plea reserved

Justice B. Chandra Kumar of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday reserved its orders on a bail plea by K. Mehfuz Ali Khan, an accused in the Obulapuram illegal mining case of Obulapuram Mining Company and personal assistant of former Karnataka minister Gali Janardhan Reddy. The CBI opposed the bail arguing that he could influence witnesses if he was released on bail.
The investigating agency said the probe into the case was still continuing.

On and there was scope for influencing the witnesses and  tampering with the evidence if the accused is released at this stage. The petitioner contended that no specific allegation against Ali Khan was made in the charge sheet.

Pages

Related articles

Comments

1
T Mirchi's picture
by T Mirchi (not verified) on
Few SA ppl cannot fool Telangana formation anymore. The special provisions were incorporated using Presidential order and hence in one stroke the same can be repelled by President himself or nullify with Article 3 wherein there exists no AP hence no Zonal system. This is just to try delaying time. If courts can forcibly make people to stay together then same should prevail with married couple, but Indian Judicial system is so strong that politicians cannot influence. Examples show in case of Bellary brothers, Ambanis, Jagans. Kudos to the Indian Judiciary for protecting the minorities without which there would have only been more deaths.

Pages

Write a comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.