Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the district collector of Medchal-Malkajgiri district to positively decide an appeal preferred under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 within 10 days. The panel comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Vangari Ramadevi, a sexagenarian mother. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by Vangari Shiva Shankar, aggrieved by the inaction of the district collector in not registering and deciding on the appeal. Earlier, the revenue divisional officer allowed an application filed by the mother and ordered to cancel two registered Gift Settlement Deeds. It was against this order, appeal was preferred to the district collector, which the petitioner alleged that district collector failed to number, hear or decide along with the stay application. The petitioner further contended that the mother approached concerned police with a request to execute the said order and vacate the petitioner from the subject properties at Chilkanagar, Uppal. The single judge pointed out that “as per provisions of Act it shall decide the appeal itself within 60 days from the date of filing. However, he has not even numbered the said appeal and not deciding the stay application” directed the district collector to consider that statutory appeal in accordance with law, within the timelines mentioned in the Act. The judge suspended the operation of the order passed by RDO in the interregnum. In the present appeal, the mother complained that single judge ought not to have stayed the order of RDO and sought to set aside the same. However, the panel after perusing the material directed the appellate authority to positively decide the appeal along with stay application preferred by the son within 10 days of receipt of copy of the order.
No extension for mela at HMDA Grounds
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court refused to extend the time for the Colours Utsav Mela held at HMDA Ground beside IMax Theatre, PVNR Marg, Hyderabad for 35 days more from Friday to July 15. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Md Nizamuddin, organiser of M/s Colours Utsav Mela. The petitioner contended that the police authorities did not properly measure the entire parking area as per the parking area sketch plan submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner further contended that earlier HMDA gave permission to run the exhibition on the premises and accordingly they invested huge amount in it. Counsel representing the state argued that the scheduled area is a very busy road with huge traffic congestion and submitted that the Necklace Road is very crucial juncture as the Chief Minister and the Chief Justice use it and the same is often filled with tourists. He further contended that VIPs and tourists visit the Ambedkar statue and Secretariat which have become prominent tourist attractions in city. Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the writ petition.
CA challenges retrospective effect to Companies Act
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered notice in a batch of 3 writ pleas by a practising Chartered Accountant challenging the power of the National Financial Reporting Authority in applying certain directives retrospectively vide the impugned order the authorities sought to act on the said CA for certain alleged acts for the period from 2013 to 2017 under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act. Section 132 of the Act provides for the constitution of the National Financial Reporting Authority which further provides the said authority to act upon complaints or suo motu and take disciplinary action against CAs. It is argued that the authority in question, established in October 2018, lacks the jurisdiction to request reports for periods preceding its formation. The authority formed in 2018 does not have the power to investigate or demand records from the financial years 2013-2017. Retrospective application of such regulatory measures is not inherently provided by the law. Laws imposing new liabilities or burdens cannot be applied retrospectively, it was argued. The penal measures involved, such as debarring from valuation and audit or permanently removing a CA's name from the register, are typically directed against individuals, not firms. Applying such penalties to firms retrospectively imposes undue and unlawful liabilities. The respondent's counsel contended that the changes in authority and procedure are procedural modifications, which are often applied retrospectively. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.
HC admits plea on police housing corp
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea complaining that the State Police Housing Corporation failed to regularise and pay salary on scale to a person engaged for 31 years. The judge directed various authorities including the district collector and the departments to respond to a writ plea filed by Mohd. Nizamuddin. The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to regularise his services and grant last-grade time scale benefits even though he worked on full time basis for 31 years in a contingent post. The petitioner further alleged that his service was never progressed on par with regularly engaged employees in the last grade post since the date of his appointment in 1990 till date. The petitioner aggrieved by the alleged fact that he has been paid a meagre amount of Rs 4,000 per month filed the writ petition contending that the respondents have violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and various articles of Indian Constitution. The judge has posted the matter after 2 weeks for further adjudication.
HC reserves order on school edu officials
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court reserved its verdict in a batch of writ petitions filed against the principal secretary, School Education Department, and other departments. Polu Nagaraju and several others filed writ pleas challenging GO Rt. No. 402 pertaining to the transfer of government teachers within erstwhile districts. The petitioners alleged that the said government order violates the new presidential order GO Ms No. 124 issued on August 30, 2018, brought in after the formation of new districts. The petitioners stated that the new presidential order permitted the transfer of persons from one local cadre to another local cadre on a reciprocal basis subject to a restriction that the persons so transferred shall forego their seniority and shall be assigned the lowest rank in the new local cadre. Counsels for the petitioners argued that the basic structure of the presidential order whereby seniority is not protected in cases of mutual transfer, has been diluted under GO Rt No. 402. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the issuance of GO Rt No. 402 and an amendment to the Presidential Order was beyond the powers of the state government and in violation of the Constitution.
