Hyderabad: In the setbacks of former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekar Rao and former Irrigation Minister T. Harish Rao, the Telangana High Court made it clear that their objection to the maintainability of the revised petition for the damage to the Medigadda barrage was wrong and wrong.
The High Court upheld the ruling of Judge Jayashankar Bhupalapally, allowing the petition to be amended to review allegations against Chandrashekar Rao, Harish Rao, Harish Rao, Harish Rao, Harish Rao and others against MEDIGADDA BARRAGE, in the case of the allegations of building the Medigadda Barrage, and provided huge currency to the public, and suffered huge compensation, involving the public, and blamed the public for the damages.
The private complaint was filed by Rajalinga Murthy of Bhupalpally, who was recently murdered. The district court in Bhupalpally rejected his complaint with jurisdiction. The District Council Court allowed Murthy’s amendment petition and issued a notice to the BRS leaders who subsequently approached the High Court.
Judge K. Lakshman made it clear that the revised petition filed in the Bhupalpally conference court was upheld. However, the judge put aside a portion of the order passed by Judge Sessions while allowing Murthy’s revised petition to be observed.
Judge Laxman believes that the court judge who allowed the petition to be amended expressed improper observations before returning to the petition without proper inquiry.
The High Court held that such observations were unfounded and involved the merits of the case. These observations suggest that the Sessions Court has made up its mind about the outcome of the case. Judge Lackshman pointed out that in the preliminary stage, these observations could not have been given in the preliminary stage.
The court considered the submission of prosecutor Palle Nageshwar Rao, who argued that as the project began, the petitioners violated trust but did not have proper consultation. The project was allegedly built on “sand” and the project would not reflect its weight, and the project was assigned to M/S Genco, which had no experience in building dams and irrigation projects. “To find out the truth behind it, the case must be registered and investigated,” he said.
The High Court directed the main meeting judge Jayashankar Bhupalapally to strictly rule the criminal amendment petition under the law.
