HC gives civic body time on illegal building

Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a writ plea challenging the inaction of GHMC in demolishing an unauthorised construction at Road No. 13A, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The judge was dealing with a batch of two writ petitions filed by Y. Balakrishna Rao questioning the permission given to the building and seeking to demolish the illegal construction. Earlier, the judge had summoned the GHMC deputy commissioner to explain how permission with respect of an existing building could have been obtained through TS-bPASS online as the authorities are required to inspect the site and certify the statement made in the online application through self-certification are true and correct, and the authorities could not have granted permission in respect of an existing building as the same would amount to the authorities regularising the unauthorised and illegal construction which has been constructed without obtaining permission. Later it was informed to the court that after issuing show cause notice, a speaking order was passed holding that the construction to be an “unauthorised, commercial/ institutional, conversion and deviation” and called upon the owner/occupier to remove the construction within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. However, it was disputed on the ground that no speaking order was received. On Tuesday, it was informed to the court that the speaking order was delivered and if the owner/occupier failed to comply with the order, further action shall be taken up by the GHMC at the expenses of the owner/occupier. The judge deferred the hearing and posted the matter after a week.

 

HC refuses to intervene in TC case

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to intervene in an order of a single judge requiring a private school to issue a transfer certificate to students. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Sidhartha High School. Earlier, a single judge in a writ petition filed by 43 parents challenging the inaction of the district education officer (DEO) in taking action against the school for not issuing transfer certificates, directed the issue of the certificates to the petitioner's children within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and posted the matter on January 22. In appeal, the school contended that the order of the single judge was contrary to law and against the principles of natural justice as it was passed without hearing the appellant. The bench directed the appellant to raise all the contentions before the single judge as the writ petition was pending consideration.

 

Presence of accused not needed in NBW hearing

Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court ruled that the presence of the accused need not be insisted upon during the proceedings for the recall of a non-bailable warrant (NBW). The judge consequently allowed a criminal petition to recall the NBW. The judge made the order in a petition filed by Arige Venkataramaiah stating that the trial court had issued the NBW as there was no representation made on his behalf on the date of the hearing. The petitioner said that despite a medical certificate to substantiate his inability to appear before the court on the dates fixed for the hearing being filed, without considering the same, the trial court had dismissed the recall of the NBW application only on the ground that the accused was not present. He would contend that the accused can be represented by his counsel and need not be present physically during the proceedings when the application for recall of NBW is being considered. The judge while allowing the petition relied upon the judgment of the apex court and made it clear that the trial court is at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.