HC upholds 11-member panel of Jamia masjid idgah

Hyderabad: Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court upheld the constitution of the 11-member managing committee of the Jamia Masjid idgah and graveyard at Chilkalguda in Secunderabad, headed by Mohd Hassanuddin as president and Syed Kaleem as secretary. Justice Nanda dismissed a writ petition filed by M.A. Rahman who said that whenever there is more than one panel, as in the present case, the law requires an election under the supervision of the inspector auditor of the Wakf Board. He alleged that the appointees were facing an inquiry for misappropriation; in any event, they were disqualified even for consideration for the post of committee member. The Wakf Board stated that it had taken all measures to safeguard the interests of Wakf institutions. The Wakf Board also argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the petitioners ought to have approached the Wakf tribunal. On perusal of the records, the judge pointed to a report of the executive staff of Wakf Board regarding allegations against members of the second panel and the appointment of the first committee as managing committee. The judge noticed that the Wakf Board had taken measures for the constitution of the managing committee. She also faulted the petitioner for suppressing relevant facts and ruled, “The petitioner did not place all the facts before the court.” She said the constitution of the managing committee was in accordance with the provisions of the Wakf Act.

HC rules that plea on land is timed out

The Telangana High Court declared that when a person seeks implementation of a statutory provision after a long lapse of time, the authorities must reject it. “This court is of the firm opinion that settled transactions cannot be disturbed after a long lapse of time,” Justice S. Nanda said. The judge negated the rights of the parties claiming a parcel of land 17 years after the occupancy certificate (OC) was issued in favour of the petitioners. At the instance of D. Srikant Reddy and another, the court set aside an order of the joint collector of Ranga Reddy district. The official had allowed an appeal by private parties questioning the OC given to the petitioners over a land parcel in Injapur of Hayatnagar mandal . The certificate was issued in 1990 and questioned in 2008. The private respondent was questioned regarding the sale of ancestral property in favour of the petitioner by their predecessors as contradictory to the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. The order of court was issuance of OC “after completing formalities” and it gave 30 days to file the appeal. The judge noted that no explanation was forthcoming from the aggrieved persons for filing the appeal after 17 years. “The principle has been reiterated from time to time that even if the time limit is prescribed in the statute for the exercise of the power, such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time,” the judge concluded.

Four in preventive detention released

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court allowed a batch of habeas corpus writ petitions challenging orders of detention relating to four persons associated with a crime registered in the two town police stations in Mahbubnagar for an attempt to murder and under the Arms Act. According to the complaint in the police station, the detenues attacked the son and husband of the complainant with knives. The attack resulted in grievous injuries to the victim and the bail petition was dismissed. At this stage, the detention orders were passed. In a similar case against a different accused, offenses under IPC were cause for passing orders under preventive detention. Allowing the petitions, a bench comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha pointed out at how the apex court held that the Telangana Prevention Detention Act of 1996 had been incorrectly applied "relying on stale material”. The bench referred to the tendency as “a callous exercise of the exceptional power of prevention detention”. Dealing with the cases on hand, the bench faulted the detaining authority for taking up a solitary incident. “Just because a solitary offence has been registered against the detenue, that itself does not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. There is no quarrel with regard to the legal position that detention order can be passed relying on a solitary offence. But, at the same time, the detaining authority had to consider the nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed and whether it disturbed public order or not”. The four detenues detained in Central Prison Cherlapally were directed to be released forthwith.

HC refuses to free PD Act detenue

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition for the production and setting free of Dasari Surender, detained under a preventive detention order in December 2019. The bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha, speaking through Justice Lakshman, recorded that the detenue was involved in 38 criminal cases from 2008 to 2021. “There cannot be any doubt that the nature of the offences for which the detenue is being prosecuted, chain snatching and abduction of persons for ransom, would certainly affect public order.... The detenue has a past history of being detained and allegedly repeating the offences after being released from detention,” the bench said. The bench observed that there was no change in the attitude of the detenue and declared that there was no irregularity in the detention order. The bench accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Teacher transfer case on July 18

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court adjourned to July 18 the issue of transfer of teachers. The High Court in February had stayed the transfer policy. Questioning the action of the government, Chikkudu Prabhakar, one of counsels for the petitioners, said it was both improper and illegal. It is argued in the batch of cases that certain amendments were brought in the rules just prior to the election to the teacher constituency in the Legislative Council which was illegal and improper. It was also contended that the rules were sought to be given effect without being placed before the Assembly and Council as stipulated under the law. The bench comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji will continue to hear the matter on July 18.

Plea on drainage system now on Aug. 22

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed the GHMC and HMWS&SB to file their reply in a petition regarding the drainage system and the risk of flooding. A bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji was dealing with a suo motu writ petition on the incident in which a nine-year-old girl fell into an open manhole in Kalasiguda and was swept away by the raging flood waters and in another incident where a six-year-old boy fell into the pit while playing nearby and drowned. It was complained that the incidents served as a grim reminder of the importance of taking precautions and safety measures, particularly during times of crisis. The bench directed the authorities to file their reply and will hear the matter again on August 22.

HC gives HMDA 2 weeks on building permit

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the HMDA to consider the application for building permission for a 34-storey residential apartment, ‘Wave Towers,’ at Kollur village. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Venture Estate Developers, questioning the HMDA for not releasing the sanction plan and the building permission of the building. The petitioner contended that despite paying approximately ₹18 crore as fees, there was no consideration from the authorities. The HMDA contended that there was a complaint to which a showcause notice was issued, and an explanation called for. They contended that immediately after submitting a response, the petitioners without giving ample time to the authorities to consider the application had rushed to the court. The judge after perusing the records directed the HMDA to consider their application by also considering the objections of all parties and pass orders within two weeks from the receipt of the order copy.