Telangana HC sets SCR's contract termination aside

Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, allowed an appeal pertaining to non-referral of a contract with the railways to arbitration. The bench was dealing with a writ appeal filed by GVV Constructions Pvt. Ltd. against South Central Railway (SCR) and others.

Earlier, a single judge in a writ petition had ruled that there was no irregularity in terminating a contract by invoking the arbitration clause. It was the petitioner's contention that the respondents have not followed the procedure. Aggrieved by the decision of the court, the unsuccessful writ petitioner filed an appeal. The bench after perusing the records allowed the appeal.

 

Response in Telugu: Comply with RTI Act, directs HC

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed the state and chief information commissioner to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 while dealing with applications for information.

The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S. Nanda disposed of a writ plea filed by Ganji Srinivasa Rao and others complaining against the respondents not securing the compliance of Sections 41a and 41b 44,71 Section 198b, Section 201, and Section 202 of the RTI Act 2005, which pertains to receiving applications and furnishing information in Telugu language. Counsel relied upon an order passed in 2013 and considering the same, the court disposed of the matter and directed the state to implement provisions of the RTI Act. 

HC orders survey of land in occupation of BSNL

 
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court directed the survey settlement officer to carry out the joint survey of lands in occupation of the telecommunication department. The bench was dealing with a writ appeal filed by BSNL challenging a direction to return excess land, if any, at Kodad village, to private parties. The bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S. Nanda was dealing with a writ appeal filed by the department.

Earlier, a writ petition was filed by Nagubandi Venkata Rama Rao contending that ancestral property belonging to his family was occupied by the department. He said a joint inspection was conducted and it came to light that the department was in possession of excess land of 0.18 guntas in Survey No. 149/2.

Thereafter he had submitted several representations to the department, seeking that the land be returned but the same were not acted upon. On the other hand, the department contended that there was no land in excess of the acquired land in its possession. The single judge after hearing the parties had directed “to file an application before the tahsildar concerned, bringing all the facts to his notice for the purpose of conducting joint survey, and on filing such application, the tahsildar concerned along with personnel of the survey department shall conduct joint survey, after issuing notice to the telecommunication department as well as the petitioner, and find out whether the telecommunication department is in possession of any excess land belonging to the petitioner, and if any such land is available, the petitioner is entitled to hold the same.” It is in this factual context that the appeal was filed.

In appeal it was argued that the appellant was in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 150 whereas the respondent is in possession of land in Survey No. 149. The bench, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, directed the survey settlement officer to carry out the joint survey within a month after giving notice to the parties concerned.