Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court faulted the commissioner of Jadcherla municipality for not taking action against a person who was illegally constructing an upper floor. The judge disposed of a writ plea filed by T. Srinivas Goud, local resident, who alleged that one M.A. Khayyum was unauthorisedly constructing an upper floor without obtaining permission or sanction from the respondent authorities. The petitioner alleged that upon noticing the unauthorised construction by the unofficial respondent, he approached the respondent authorities and sought action. Standing counsel for the respondent authorities stated that it had called upon the unofficial respondent to stop further construction and remove the constructed portion within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. However, upon enquiry by the judge, standing counsel for the respondent authorities stated that no action was taken against the unofficial respondent for non-compliance of directions of respondent authorities. Upon hearing counsels for both sides, the judge remarked that the commissioner of the municipality ought to have taken further action in the matter, since the unofficial respondent had failed to remove the said unauthorised construction within the time granted. The judge observed that the commissioner had failed to implement the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 though the unofficial respondent did not choose to comply with the notice issued by the respondents. Accordingly, the judge disposed of the writ plea by directing the commissioner of Jadcherla municipality to take action against the unofficial respondent in an expeditious manner.
HC calls for report on green spaces in state
The PIL panel of the Telangana High Court required the additional advocate general to appraise the court about the steps taken by the government for maintaining green spaces in various urban areas. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, was dealing with PILs, seeking adequate maintenance of the existing public parks and green spaces in various urban areas in the state. The panel posted the matter to August 1 for the government to apprise the court with regard to steps taken by the respondents for planting trees in the state.
Reimburse tuition fees of physically-challenged students: HC
Justice C.V. Bhaskar of the Telangana High Court directed reimbursement of tuition fees to physically-challenged students. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the Professional Accredited Engineering Colleges Association and five other engineering institutions challenging the action of the BC welfare and minorities welfare departments and others in not reimbursing the tuition fees to the petitioners in respect of physically-challenged students as well as eligible students belonging to Backward Classes, Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes, Economically Backward Classes and minority communities and rank holders up to 10,000 rank in Eamcet for the academic years 2014-15 and 2015-16. It was argued that despite the state government directing the aforementioned departments to release the balance amounts, the departments have not complied with the same. The judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to release the balance amounts.
OU asst. prof. plea on ‘illegal’ transfer
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the transfer of an assistant professor of Osmania Medical College (OMC) in contravention of a GO dated July 3, 2024. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Dr Pidathala Gopala Rao, assistant professor. The petitioner alleged that the principal secretary of state medical and health department, director of medical education and OU, had unreasonably enlisted the name of the petitioner in the list of employees to be compulsorily transferred. The petitioner alleged that this was contrary to the orders of the government, as the petitioner had not completed four years of service at the present place of work. The petitioner complained that the action of the respondent authorities was arbitrary and illegal. The judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further adjudication.
