Telangana HC notices to Chief Secretary, Naveen Mittal in octogenarian's pleas
Justice N. Tukaramji of Telangana High Court on Thursday (June 19, 2025) issued notices to senior IAS officer Naveen Mittal and three others in a criminal petition filed by an octogenarian Shanti Agarwal seeking a direction to set aside a trial court order which kept in abeyance criminal action against four of them.
The petitioner, represented by her son Atul Agarwal, wanted the HC to dismiss the order of the 12th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The trial court passed the order in a case filed by Shanti Agarwal to take cognisance of the charges against the IAS officer and three others in a land related matter. According to the petitioner, she purchased an evacuee property of 5,262 square yards of land in Nanalnagar of Gudimalkapur in Hyderabad in 1965.
She contended that IAS officer Naveen Mittal in 2011 while serving as Hyderabad district Collector gave No Objection Certificate to some persons unconnected to the said land. She claimed that she had moved the HC which dismissed the NOC issued by Naveen Mittal and recommended disciplinary action against Mittal and some other Revenue officials accused of involvement in issuing the NOC.
Meanwhile, the trial court passed an order keeping in abeyance the action of taking cognisance of the charges against the IAS officer and others. Challenging this, the petitioner filed criminal petition.
In a related development, Justice K. Lakshman of the HC issued notices to the Chief Secretary, Naveen Mittal and R. Keshavulu (Inspector in Land Survey and Records department) in a writ petition filed by Shanti Agarwal. In this petition, she sought a direction to Chief Secretary to prosecute Naveen Mittal and R. Keshavulu in the backdrop of a single judge order to initiate disciplinary action against them.
The petitioner contended that she represented to the Chief Secretary to prosecute Naveen Mittal in the backdrop of the HC single judge pronouncing order to initiate action against him in issuing NOC over her land at Nanalnagar.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Anurag Rastogi gets one-year extension as Haryana chief secretary
The central government has granted a year's extension in service to chief secretary Anurag Rastogi. The 1990-batch Haryana IAS officer, who was due to retire on June 30, will continue to hold the charge of chief secretary till June 30, 2026. A June 19 communication from the Union ministry of personnel said that the central government, on a proposal of the Haryana government, has approved extension of service for Rastogi from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. Hindustan Times was the first to report on June 8 that Rastogi would get an extension in service, thus enabling him to continue as chief secretary from July 1. Since Rule 16 (1) of the All-India Service (death cum retirement benefits) Rules, 1958, provided for only six months of extension in service for the chief secretary, the central government relaxed this rule by invoking Rule 3 of All India Service (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, to grant Rastogi 12 months of extension in service. Rule 3 of All India Service (Conditions of Service- Residuary Matters) Rules, 1960, empowers the central government to dispense with or relax the requirements of a rule or regulations made under All India Services Act, 1951. Rastogi was appointed as chief secretary in February this year after 1989-batch IAS officer Vivek Joshi took voluntary retirement on being chosen as Election Commissioner by the central government. The Nayab Singh Saini government appointed Rastogi as Joshi's successor by not following the seniority principle. According to the gradation list of Haryana IAS officers, Sudhir Rajpal of the 1990 batch is the senior most as per the inter se seniority followed by Sumita Misra, Anurag Rastogi, Anand Mohan Sharan and Raja Sekhar Vundru. A dispute has been raised by the 1990-batch IAS officers regarding the inter-se seniority which remains unadjudicated. Rastogi was also given the interim charge of chief secretary for a few days after the retirement of TVSN Prasad and before Joshi joined as the chief secretary in November 2024. Rastogi was later posted as financial commissioner, revenue (FCR) and also held the charge of additional chief secretary, finance and planning. He still holds the charge of the finance and planning departments.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Calcutta High Court's MGNREGA order underlines people shouldn't suffer for the corruption of a few
Written by Purbayan Chakraborty and Mrinalini Paul In a recent verdict, the Calcutta High Court has directed the Centre to resume work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme in West Bengal from August 1. The Centre, through an earlier order dated March 9, 2022, stopped releasing funds for the scheme, citing irregularities under Section 27 of the Act. In May 2023, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, a rural workers' trade union, filed a petition in the HC challenging the suspension. The HC order is a much-awaited relief for the state and its millions of NREGA workers. The Right to Livelihood is a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution. Any executive action that seeks to curtail a fundamental right must pass the proportionality test as laid down and consistently employed by the Supreme Court in a series of cases like Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024). The test requires that any such executive measure hold a legitimate objective and follow suitable means. It also mandates the use of an equally effective alternative. The impact on the individual's right must not be out of proportion to the objective being pursued. The irregularities were found in only a few of West Bengal's more than 3300 gram panchayats. Instead of taking targeted corrective action, the Centre chose to issue a state-wide blanket stoppage of funds under MGNREGA, rendering millions of rural workers unemployed. This action was neither the least restrictive nor proportionate to the objective that was being pursued. Hence, it failed the proportionality test on both counts. Section 27 of the Act empowers the Centre to stop the funds under the MGNREGA scheme as a last resort in cases of proven irregularities. But it also places a corresponding duty on it to employ remedial measures in a time-bound manner and resume implementation of the scheme within a reasonable period of time. However, in this case, even after more than three years, the Centre failed to resume funding. Therefore, the HC rightly held: 'The scheme of the act does not envisage a situation where it would be put to cold storage for eternity.' Section 27 balances accountability with livelihood — that balance was breached in this case. The HC's order is a reaffirmation that executive in the exercise of their discretionary powers cannot go beyond statutory or constitutional limitations. Corruption is grave but not uncommon in our country. But should the vulnerable people suffer due to corruption at higher levels? The funding was stopped at a time when the MGNREGA could have been a coping mechanism, especially for the thousands of poor rural workers who had returned home due to Covid. Unpaid wages and no new work in sight forced them further towards a vicious cycle of poverty, indebtedness, migration and malnutrition. The deprivation of the state and its population doesn't stop in MNREGA; it extends to other central schemes as well. The Ministry of Rural Development has informed a parliamentary panel that almost Rs 8,000 crore is yet to be released under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMA-G) for West Bengal. In 2023, the state accused the Centre of stopping funds for Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY). However, the then Union Minister Smriti Irani refuted these allegations, saying that the state government was misusing funds and Rs 260 crore 'were lying unused'. West Bengal is also one of the three states in the country that refused to comply with the PM SHRI scheme and, as a result, has not received any funding for the Samagra Shiksha scheme (2024-25). However, the state government's response has been very confusing. Apart from playing the victim, it has rarely seemed to pursue logical or legal action. Often, it rushed to launch the state equivalent of the schemes that are blocked by the Centre. This happened even in the case of MGNREGA. The state launched the Karmashree scheme in 2024, under which every MGNREGA job cardholder household is supposed to get 50 days of work in a year. Launched just before the general elections, in no way, does it match the meticulous provisions of MGNREGA. For instance, Karmashree does not have any separately allocated budget |nor any mention of unemployment allowance. While the HC Order comes as an immediate respite to the state's 257 lakh registered NREGA workers, governments should read its larger message against 'weaponising schemes'. That corruption will not be tolerated is explicit in the order, as the HC empowered the Centre to impose special conditions on the state so that past issues do not recur. But that doesn't mean that people's lives and livelihoods could be compromised. With the assembly elections scheduled next year, the order has been hailed as a victory by both the TMC and BJP, but the real victory lies in the warning of the judiciary that they dare not mix up the politics of corruption and politics of welfare further. Chakraborty is a Kolkata-based lawyer and Paul is a researcher at TISS
New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC notice to Naveen Mittal in evacuee property NOC case
In the second petition, Agarwal contested a decision of the trial court which had kept in abeyance the cognisance proceedings against Mittal and other public servants due to the pending sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The petitioner alleged that the NOCs were issued illegally to third parties in criminal collusion with other accused persons. She claimed that forged and fabricated documents were used and that the NOCs were issued with false recitals. She also alleged that objections raised by her were recorded without her being served any notice or given an opportunity to be heard. The NOC proceedings allegedly went so far as to declare the title and possession in favour of the applicants, effectively undermining her own claim to the property. Agarwal asserted that the entire process was aimed at misclassifying the disputed land as 'non-evacuee' property, thereby nullifying her title which is based on GO No 388 dated December 20, 1954. This government order had declared the subject land as evacuee property, forming the basis of her claim. The two writ petitions came up for hearing before separate Single Judge Benches — one headed by Justice K Lakshman and the other by Justice N Tukaramji. After hearing the submissions, both benches issued notices to Mittal.
