HC Seeks Report on Safety Equipment in Govt Schools and Junior Colleges

 Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday granted a week’s time to the commissioner and director of school education and other authorities to submit a detailed status report qua providing a sufficient number of fire extinguishers to government schools and junior colleges. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a PIL filed by Keethineedi Akhil Sri Guru Teja challenging the inaction of respondent authorities in providing fire extinguishers and getting structural safety, soundness, sanitation and water purity certificates periodically for government schools and junior colleges. The petitioner complained that such inaction of the authorities was in violation of the directions of the Supreme Court. The petitioner inter alia also prayed that first-aid kits and necessary medicines should be readily available in every school, Provision of a water tank and separate piping with hose reel to the ground and first floors and firefighting training to all teachers and X to XII students should be imparted. The petitioner prayed that a fire task force, comprising the head of the institution, two teachers/staff members and one member from the fire and rescue department should be constituted in school. The panel will hear the matter on April 9.

Political party’s writ against schools dismissed

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court held that a political party cannot file a writ petition challenging the inaction of the director of school education against private schools for conducting classes from 8 am to 8 pm, allegedly in violation of regulations. The judge dealt with a writ petition filed by Jai Bhim Rao Bharat Party, represented by Mahesh Babu, claiming to be a social worker. The petitioner alleged that despite several representations against private schools operating without adhering to proper timetables, the respondents remained inactive, allowing these schools to function in violation of legal norms. The petitioner argued that this inaction was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the Constitution. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to inspect all private schools to ensure a healthy and lawful educational environment for children. The petitioner also sought immediate action against institutions violating regulations to safeguard students’ rights. The judge observed that, although the petitioner filed the writ petition in the interest of public welfare, it cannot be maintained under writ jurisdiction as the party is not personally affected by it. However, the judge granted the petitioner liberty to file a PIL instead.

Financial fraud case accused gets anticipatory bail

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a businessman accused in a financial fraud case. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Sagayaraj Kumar Rajendran, seeking protection from arrest in connection with a case registered at Nizamabad IV town police station. According to the prosecution, the complainant was induced to invest `1 lakh in Medi Life Medicines & Surgical Supplies, with the promise of a `4,000 weekly returns for 45 weeks. The complainant transferred `50,000 twice in August 2024 and an additional ₹50,000 in cash. However, after suspecting that the scheme violated RBI regulations, he demanded a refund, but the accused allegedly delayed repayment. A case was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act (Act), and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the case. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner’s co-accused was granted bail. The judge, considering that a co-accused was already released, and the key aspects of the investigation were completed, granted anticipatory bill to the petitioner.

HC relief for sub-engineer post applicant

The Telangana High Court granted relief to a candidate, who was denied selection for the post of sub-engineer (electrical) due to an inadvertent error in his application form. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka allowed the writ petition filed by M. Pardha Saradhi. The petitioner, a BC-A category candidate from a poor background, had applied for the post under the 2018 recruitment notification but mistakenly marked "yes" to a query regarding the creamy layer due to a language misunderstanding. Despite securing 76 out of 100 marks and later submitting his non-creamy layer certificate, he was denied verification and selection. The judge noted that the online application did not provide an option for correction, and the ambiguity in the phrase ‘under the creamy layer’ contributed to the error. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judge emphasised that minor clerical mistakes should not cost a deserving candidate a rightful opportunity and directed the northern power distribution company of Telangana to rectify the mistake and consider his selection.

Criminal proceedings against hospital MD quashed

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the managing director and an employee of Raj ENT hospital, Hanamkonda. They were accused of selling remdesivir injections at inflated prices during the Covid-19 pandemic. The judge dealt with a criminal plea filed by Ajmeera Raju Naik, a medical practitioner, and Mandapalli Sagar, a private employee. The prosecution alleged that the hospital sold the injection for `30,000 to `35,000, while the MRP was `3,490. The judge ruled that the essential elements of cheating under Section 415 of Indian Penal Code, which lays down the offence of fraudulent or dishonest inducement, were not established, as there was no evidence of deception or coercion. Noting the lack of direct involvement of the accused and citing a similar ruling, the judge found that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process. Accordingly, the judge quashed the proceedings before against the petitioners.