Telangana HC orders status quo on termination of lease

HYDERABAD: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered status quo in a writ plea challenging the illegal termination of a lease deed by the executive engineer of the roads and buildings department, Lingampally mandal in Rangareddy district. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by NAC Quippo Equipment Services Limited, who contended that they had entered into a lease agreement with the state and paying a rent of Rs 5 lakh per acre to the government to generate revenue. The petitioner alleged that on September 14, 2024, the respondent authorities took possession of the land after unilaterally rescinding the lease deed.

This, the petitioner argued, was arbitrary and illegal, as no notice of termination was issued to the petitioner. The judge, after hearing the petitioner, refused to grant an ex-parte order against the respondents as the possession of the land was taken by the authorities. Instead, the judge ordered notice to the National Academy of Construction, Hyderabad, and posted the matter for hearing.

Co-op society seeks change in power supply category

The Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea of a co-operative society challenging the actions of Southern Power Distribution Company Limited and its officers in not changing its category as regards power supply. Justice Surepalli Nanda took on file a writ plea filed by Zresta Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited situated in Gandipet. The case of the petitioner was that the respondents failed to change the category of power supply from HT category II commercial to HTVI category townships and residential colonies despite the fact that the petitioner executed an agreement and completed all the formalities pertaining to category change. The petitioner alleged that the actions of the respondents in not effecting the change despite compliance were illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and tariff orders issued from time to time. The petitioner also sought direction for a refund of the excess bills raised/taxed and collected by the respondents from the petitioner society under the commercial category. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response.

Teacher accuses TSEREIS of discrimination

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the ‘discrimination’ by the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TSEREIS) while regularising the services of teachers. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by B. Suhasini, a trained Hindi teacher posted in Nizamabad district. The petitioner complained about non-regularisation of her services, while similarly placed contract teachers on par with her were promoted by the respondent authorities. The petitioner contended that the actions of the respondents violate her fundamental rights and principles of natural justice. She sought regularisation along with monetary benefits. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed the respondents to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.

No HC relief for delay in filing appeal under EPF Act

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court refused to grant any relief to the petitioner for condoning the delay of 185 days for filing an appeal under the EPF Act. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Indian Security Force against an order passed by the central government industrial tribunal-cum-labour court, EPF tribunal, Hyderabad. Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that Rule 7(2) of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1997 stipulates a limitation of 120 days for preferring an appeal under the EPF Act and the court cannot the delay beyond that. The judge, considering the said argument, said that EPF Act was a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act and ruled that whenever a statutory provision is made to file an appeal within a particular period, the court shall not condone the delay beyond the statutory limit by applying the Limitation Act.