TS HC Grants Relief in Writ Petitions, Orders Quashing of Eviction Notice and More
ORR hoarding HC orders status quo
Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Friday suspended an order passed by the Mirjaguda Gram Panchayat in Shankerpally mandal allowing the removal or demolition of an advertisement pole. In a writ plea, Hima Sailaja Ads sought for quashing a notice issued by the respondent regarding the demolition of the pole on their property. The petitioner moved a lunch motion before the High Court stating that there was the threat of demolishing the advertisement pole board, stating that it is within 45 metres from the Outer Ring Road, which violates the guidelines that stipulate that no advertisement board can be constructed within 45 metres of the ORR. The petitioner further contended that the respondents failed to issue a notice and they do not have any objection to ensure that guidelines are followed. The department of panchayat raj and rural development has been directed to maintain the status quo and not demolish the advertisement board, pending further orders.
Writ against Apollo Hospital withdrawn
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court permitted the withdrawal of a writ petition questioning the judgment of the state consumer forum in favour of Apollo Hospitals. T.S. Anand Kumar moved the forum under the Consumer Protection Act, complaining of deficiency in service and negligence leading to the death of his mother, who was undergoing treatment at Apollo for a heart ailment. The District Forum awarded Rs 3.5 lakh after holding the hospital guilty of negligence. The hospital contested the award successfully before the State Consumer Forum, which set aside the award of the primary tribunal. It ruled that mortality in hypertension patients has always been significantly higher when compared to hypotension. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the writ petition in High Court. The bench pointed out to the petitioner that he had an effective remedy under the Consumer Protection Act and that there was no reason forthcoming from him for not availing of the effective alternative statutory remedy. The bench of acting Chief Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice N. Rajeshwar Rao extended an option to the petitioner to withdraw the present writ and avail of effective alternative statutory remedy, or run the risk of the writ petition being dismissed.
Auction purchaser is also legal representative: HC
Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court set aside the order and eviction notice issued to Ashoka Talkies in Ramagundam area, hearing a writ plea filed by its management, complaining that leasehold rights of the property in question were purchased by them in a public auction and since then, the petitioner had been running the theatre on the premises by duly obtaining permissions from the authorities from time to time. When petitioners issued an application for renovation of the old theatre, Singareni Collieries Company Limited issued a Form-B notice of eviction within 30 days. The petitioner approached the civil court but no relief was granted. The counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent authorities erroneously interpreted the phrase successors-in-office to mean only legal heirs of the individual Sri Sabbani Rajaiah and not the successors to the office of the firms i.e., M/s. Ashoka Talkies. He submitted that the word ‘successors’ means a person who gets the title to a property after the death of the title holder pursuant to certain transactions. It was further submitted that since the petitioner and his partner together purchased the leasehold rights, Sayala Rajaiah, one of the partners, becomes the successors-in-office of Ashoka Talkies i.e., the lessee from SCCL, and therefore, entitled to continue the lease, and the SCCL ought to have executed a fresh lease agreement.
On the other hand, the counsel representing SCCL contended that the said partnership firm was no longer in existence and the petitioner cannot claim to be successors-in-office to a firm which was no longer in existence. He further submitted that the petitioner only purchased the leasehold rights in the superstructure and cannot claim to be the owner of the land. He also contended that the petitioner has become an unauthorised occupier of the subject land and accordingly, the notice for eviction was rightly issued.
The judge held that the respondents had full knowledge about the sale of the property and also that the petitioner has been in legal occupation of the same since 2008. Such being the case, issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1968, is also not correct and cannot be sustained. The judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the notice of eviction and also directed to execute a lease deed in favour of the petitioner for the tenure of the lease.
Locomotive-disabled challenge TSPSC exam
Justice P. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court directed the State Public Service Commission to respond to a writ petition questioning its failure to provide additional time for differently-abled candidates. The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Amoga Arnava and A. Rajshekar, who are locomotive-disabled candidates appearing for Group-I examinations of TSPSC. The counsel for the petitioner, T. Swetcha, contended that according to the instructions mentioned in the notification, compensatory time of 20 minutes per hour will be provided to locomotive-disabled persons with more than 40 per cent disability. “The petitioners rightly fall under such a category as they are more than 70 per cent disabled. Even though this guideline of providing extra time was brought to the notice of invigilators, the benefit was not extended to the petitioners because of which they were unable to answer multiple questions,” Swetcha said. Standing counsel representing TSPSC informed the court that he would respond to the grievance of the petitioner. Accepting the request of the respondents, the court adjourned the matter to August 1.
