Distance Education Student Challenges Action of Bar Council

 Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court reserved judgment in a writ plea challenging the Telangana State Bar Council for not enrolling a law graduate as an advocate. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Kevin Sukirthy who alleged that the respondent was not enrolling him on the ground that he completed his Intermediate through distance education, more specifically under Rules 5(a) and 5(b) of Legal Education Rules, 2008. The petitioner argued that despite securing admission to a three-year LLB programme through the TSLawcet 2017, his qualifications were not questioned by the State Bar Council earlier. The petitioner argued that the Bar Council's decision to question his eligibility for enrolment at this stage, after he had successfully completed his LLB, was unjustified. Standing counsel appearing for the State Bar Council justified the rejection of the application on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of the Bar Council Rules which grant enrolment only if the applicants complete their immediately preceding course before LLB in the regular mode. Counsel further pointed out the petitioner completed his intermediate through distance education and simultaneously completed his LLB in the same year. Standing counsel argued that therefore the petitioner cannot be said to be meeting the eligibility criteria for enrolment into the Bar Council. Counsel further pointed out the judgment of M. Naveen Kumar vs The State of Telangana given by a division bench of the Telangana High Court wherein the rejection of the application of admission of a candidate into the state law universities was upheld by the court on the ground that as the intermediate course of the petitioner was through distance education and the pre-condition of completing a regular course before the LLB was not fulfilled. It was also stressed that the Legal Education Rules require the immediately preceding course (degree or intermediate) to be obtained through regular education, not distance learning. The judge after hearing both the parties, reserved his judgment.

2. HC suspends order of commercial court for non-reasoned order

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court suspended an interim order on alleged trademark mark violations against Open Financial Technologies Private Limited. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka admitted an appeal filed by Wegofin Digital Solutions Private Limited, which had suffered an order of injunction in the hands of the commercial court at Ranga Reddy. The controversy related to the alleged violation of the trademark of the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that the appellant had replicated its website in toto and was therefore in violation of its intellectual property rights. Senior counsel K. Vivek Reddy pointed out that the content insofar as there were similarities was generic in nature. There was no copying of any exclusive or unique facets as claimed by the plaintiffs. He also argued that the order of the commercial court would have to be set aside on the simple ground that it was not supported by any reason as required under the law. The panel found that the impugned order did not contain any reasons. Speaking for the bench, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya pointed out that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code required giving reasons while granting an ex parte ad interim injunction. It is an integral part of public policy that an order of the court must be supported by reasons. It would otherwise be in violation of the principles of natural justice, the panel reasoned. The panel recorded that the injunction restraining the appellant from using the design on its website or at any fest was not supported by reason and accordingly suspended the injunction.

3. Narayanpet temple contempt case closed

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court closed a contempt case against the commissioner of endowments pertaining to the misappropriation of funds of Sri Sadguru Loka Masand Maharaj Temple in Narayanpet. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by B. Somnath Rathod, who alleged that the respondent authorities failed to comply with the directions passed by the judge earlier in a writ plea preferred by the petitioner. Earlier, the judge directed the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner alleging misappropriation of temple funds by G. Srinivasa Raju, then assistant commissioner of endowments, and the executive officers of the temple and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The petitioner alleged that despite directions, the respondent failed to comply with the directions passed by the judge. During the hearing, the government pleader for the respondent authorities informed the judge that the petitioner’s representation was considered and disposed of, in compliance with the directions passed by the judge in the writ plea. Taking into consideration the compliance of the respondent authorities, the judge closed the contempt.

4. Displacement for mining excavation questioned

Justice C. V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court accepted a writ plea challenging the attempt of the state revenue department, commissioner of rehabilitation and resettlement and six others to displace and take away land of around 71 daily wage/casual laborers in Mayabazaar village, Dhanbad panchayat, Bhadradri Kothagudem district, for digging a coal mine without providing them any compensation. The judge heard a writ plea filed by Thatti Narsimha Rao and 38 others, who contended that the respondent authorities instead of providing the compensation, were forcibly allotting a mere 100 sq. yards of house plot to the petitioners and threatening them with dire consequences upon requesting compensation towards their land. The case of the petitioners was that they were an “affected family” under Section 3(m) for rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) for availing the compensation benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act) and were entitled to avail compensation towards the acquisition of their land. The court, upon hearing the petitioners, directed the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners and extend the benefits of R&R compensation to the eligible beneficiaries under the Act.