‘KTR tea stall’ owner celebrates Sircilla collector’s transfer with firecrackers

Hyderabad: The owner of the KTR tea stall in Rajanna Sircilla lit firecrackers in front of his shop on Saturday, September 27, celebrating the transfer of district collector Sandeep Kumar Jha, who had ordered the closure of his tea shop earlier this year.

In February, the tea stall owned by Bathula Srinivas was closed down on orders of the Collector after he spotted KTR’s photo being prominently displayed at the stall and ordered municipal officials to seize the stall if it lacked a trade license.

Following this, Srinivas staged a protest outside the municipal office, urging the collector to reopen his stall, adding that it is his only source of income.

After the videos went viral, KTR spoke to Srinivas on the phone and assured him that his stall would be reopened. In March, he inaugurated Srinivas’ new tea stall at Gandhi Chowk in Sircilla town.

On September 26, Chief Secretary K Rama Krishna Rao ordered the transfer of six IAS officers, including Sandeep Kumar Jha. He is posted as Special Secretary to Government, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department.

M Haritha, Special Secretary in the Education Department, has been posted as Collector & District Magistrate of Rajanna Sircilla District.

This move comes as the Telangana High Court on September 25 instructed the Chief Secretary to ‘reprimand’ the Sircilla Collector for initiating criminal proceedings against a petitioner in violation of its orders.

The High Court was hearing a petition filed by Vanapatla Kavitha, who sought quashing of a cheating case registered against her in Vemulawada police station based on a complaint lodged by the Vemulawada Urban Tahsildar. 

The petitioner’s house in Anupuram was acquired by the government in 2004, and compensation was paid to her, but her name was not shown in the list of project-displaced families.

Later, she filed a petition in the High Court asking her family to be declared under the displaced list. The court has also ruled in her favour.

However, instead of implementing the order, the Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner, accusing her of misleading the court to obtain compensation for her land.