Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court set aside the notice of no confidence against the chairman of Nereducherla municipality in Nalgonda district. The judge was hearing a writ petition field by Chandamalla Jaya Babu challenging the proposed motion of December 16 submitted by the ward members of Nereducherla municipality for the removal of a chairperson. It was challenged on the ground of being arbitrary and in violation of provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act. Senior counsel B. Mayur Reddy complained that there were large-scale procedural violations and pointed out that even the notice had invoked provisions of a repealed Act. He pointed out that a notice under Form -II must emanate from the district collector. However, in the instant case, he said it was issued by the RDO. He said that the notice was therefore illegal and unconstitutional. The judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside the notice and kept it open to the authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
As regards two other writ petitions filed by Abdul Khaleel, vice-chairperson, and Ankam Rajender, chairperson of Khanapur municipality, Nirmal district, the judge suspended the notice for a motion of no-confidence against both the vice-chairperson and chairperson, respectively. It was argued by J. Prabhakar, senior counsel that the action was contrary to Section 37 of the Municipalities Act, which provides “A motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson and/or the Vice-Chairperson may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion, in such form as specified under the Rules, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Municipality having right to vote, together with a copy of the proposed motion, to the District Collector concerned, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules”. The senior counsel pointed out that the first step heading for a motion of no-confidence must be a complaint in the prescribed form to the collector. In the absence of such a complaint, the counsel argued that there could be no motion of no-confidence. He complained that the illegality went to the roots of the matter and the very initiation of a no-confidence motion against the petitioners was illegal.
HC dismisses PIL against 2 BHK builders
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a PIL questioning the action of the GHMC in awarding '180 crore of work on nomination to Rizzu Construction to construct 2412 two bhk houses with infrastructure in Mansanpally phase I and II as per their whims and fancies and without calling the tender notification and not following the due tendering process for getting the work executed and been paid substantial amount against the contracted amount is arbitrary and illegal. In 2017, the municipal administration department granted sanction for the construction of 1162 houses at Gattupally and 1296 at Munugnoor. The construction was allotted to Arrow Constructions and Rizzu Constructions, respectively.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T. Vinod Kumar, found that the petitioner filed the present writ petition after the completion of the work. It is the grievance of the petitioner that an excess amount was being paid to the construction company. Dismissing the writ petition, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe said that there was no material to record to rebut the contention of DEC Infrastructures, that the best price was fetched by negotiations.
The petitioner has not placed material on record to show that any financial loss is caused to the public exchequer. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we hold that the action of the state and GHMC is just, fair and reasonable and deviation from the route of tender is neither discriminatory nor arbitrary inviting the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court also refused to interfere on the ground that the doctrine of delay and laches applies to the public interest litigation as well, the bench said. It further added that the petitioner had not explained the delay on his part in not approaching the court within the reasonable time before completion of the work. It is obvious that the delay in the facts of the case on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court is of vital importance which is unexplained. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for demolition of 2 BHK houses, which have already been constructed and handed over to beneficiaries, cannot be entertained in this public interest litigation. We, therefore, hold that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches for which no explanation has been offered. For this reason, also, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
HC navigates realtors to ULC authorities
Justice Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court directed two real estate companies to approach the appropriate authorities under the Land Ceiling Act for recovery of amounts paid towards regularisation. Srusmitha Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Smitha Estates Pvt. Ltd filed a writ petition. The petitioners argued that they are entitled to the recovery of the amount as the respondent authorities, the government of Andhra Pradesh and others, had not refunded the amount paid by the petitioners towards regularisation of the lands, despite the abatement of the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 with respect to the lands in Survey No 20, 21, and 22 of Kothaguda village in Serilingampally mandal. The judge, after perusing the records, directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum as it pertained to urban lands ceiling, it is to be heard by the concerned authority and not by the High Court.
Notice in 14 pensioners petition HC
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court issued a notice to Telugu Akademi and department of higher education in a pension dispute case. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Anil Kumar, was dealing with a writ plea filed by B. Vara Laxmi and 14 others challenging the action of AP Telugu Akademi Society in not paying full pension to the petitioners from the date of bifurcation of the erstwhile Telugu Akademi in May 2022. The petitioner contended that they were appointed in different posts in the erstwhile Telugu Akademi and had attained superannuation after the appointed day June 2, 2014, after a long, continuous and unblemished service. They further contended that they made several representations to both the states and there was no effective consideration. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
