Disposed

Gulam Afzal, v. The Director, Central Burea of Investigation (C.B.I)

Telangana HC27 Feb 2013WP/36442/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No.36442 of 2012, the Court directed the Director General of Police of A.P. to comply with requirements of the Standing Counsel for CBI and forward the file for processing extradition within three weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Director General of Police directed to comply with requirements of respondent No.3 and forward the file within three weeks.

Gulam Afzal, Vs The Director, Central Burea of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.36442 of 2012

¶2

Date : 27-2-2013

¶3

Between: Gulam Afzal .. Petitioner And The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi and others .. Respondents

¶4

Counsel for petitioner : Ms. T.V. Sridevi Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri P. Kesava Rao Counsel for respondent No.3 : Mrs. K. Mani Deepika Counsel for respondent No.4 : Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent No.5 : --

¶5

The Court made the following:

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in extraditing respondent No.5 from U.S.A. and in not exhibiting his name in the Red Corner Notice in the Interpol Website in connection with C.C.No.756/2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as illegal.

¶8

Even though counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of respondent No.3, Mrs. K. Mani Deepika, learned Standing Counsel, submitted that the file was returned by respondent No.3 to the State Government for complying with certain requirements to enable her client to process the file.

¶9

Ms. T.V. Sri Devi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the file is with respondent No.4-Director General of Police of the State of A.P. and that appropriate directions may be issued to the said authority to comply with the requirements.

¶10

In the light of the above facts, respondent No.4 is

¶11

directed to comply with the requirements sought by respondent No.3. In this connection, the petitioner is permitted to meet respondent No.4 and furnish the documents, if any, in his custody for compliance with the requirements of respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 shall ensure that the requirements pointed out by respondent No.3 are complied with and the file is forwarded to respondent No.3 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the file from respondent No.4, respondent No.3 shall expedite the process of extradition of respondent No.5.

¶12

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶13

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP Nos.46288/2012 and 48449/2012 are disposed of as infructuous.

¶14

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

¶15

Date : 27-2-2013 AM

Gulam Afzal, v. The Director, Central Burea of Investigation (C.B.I)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Afzal, v. The Director, Central Burea of Investigation (C.B.I)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, Vs The Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sunkara Jyothamma, Vs Dr. T.Radha

M.Venkata Subbaiah Vs The State of A.P.

M.Munirathnam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Manoj Patel, S/o. Ravilal Patel, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M.Laxma Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh