HC dismisses pleas on hike in pharma charges

HYDERABAD: Justice K. Laxman of the Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by registered societies and colleges in pharmacy education, questioning the “exorbitant” increase in pharmacy education regulation charges (PERC).

Justice Laxman in his 23-page order said the relevant Act was enacted “to make better provisions for the regulation of the profession and pharmacy education.” Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) counsel said the increase in the PERC was due to the increase in the financial burden on the council. Counsel said PCI was spending on the uplift of pharmacy teachers, among others.

The judge held hold that the PCI had the power to issue “revised PERC to meet its objectives and it has also obtained the opinions of the expert committee.” The judge dismissed the petitions on the ground that the prayers were unfounded, and the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought.

 

HC sends advocate to relevant court

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to take on file a septuagenarian advocate’s complaint against the police. Vanagari Vittal, 76, from Nalgonda, had moved the court complaining that the Nalgonda Rural police had failed to register a case of trespass against his neighbour. The judge reasoned that it was open to the petitioner to move to the appropriate court for police protection.

 

HC seeks response on prohibitory list entry

Justice M. Sudheer of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the revenue department and HMDA to respond to a writ petition filed by Signature One Developers on the question of land being unjustly included in the “prohibitory list.” The petitioner moved the court when a large parcel of land involved in the Discovery City Project involving Ramky was placed on the prohibitory list at the instance of HMDA. The petitioner said that the outcome of the dispute between Ramky and HMDA was resulting in the petitioner suffering.

 

Can GPA be cancelled” HC reserves verdict

Justice M. Sudheer of the Telangana High Court reserved his verdict in a batch of pleas raising the question as to whether or not a general power of attorney can be cancelled without notice to the agent. The judge heard a batch of writ pleas with regard to land portions in Alwal where the power of attorney issued in favour of the agent was cancelled by the principal on the ground that the agent had acted contrary to the interest of the principal. The agent and persons who purchased the property based on the GPA contended that the registering authority ought not to have permitted unilateral cancellation since civil rights emanating from the original GPA and persons acting upon it ought to have been heard first.

 

Builders oppose GST on transfer of rights

A two-judge bench of Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Tukaramji on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the question of whether GST is leviable on transfer of development rights by landowners to builders, or not. The bench was dealing with the bunch of writ petitions filed by Prahita Constructions, Janina Marine Properties LLP, Dyumat Hotels LLP. The petitioners contended that a joint development agreement is a sale of land and thus such a transaction is not emendable to GST. It was also contended that under the guise of power under Section 148 of the Act, the authorities without power were levying such tax. The revenue department stated that inter alia the transfer was not of land in the joint development agreement. Since it was the transfer of development rights, it was liable to GST. The department further contended that the power to impose such tax was under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act; Section 148 only deferred the period when such tax becomes payable. The bench which heard counsels for almost half a day reserved the verdict.