HC directs inspection of court order violations around ÂÂÂÂMalkam cheruvu
HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the member-secretary of Telangana State Legal Service Authority (TSLSA) to examine Malkam cheruvu situated at Raidurg Serilingampally and submit a report within 15 days as to whether any construction was carried out despite a restraining order that is in force. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji was dealing with a contempt case filed by Edla Tulsa and two others, who contended that the respondents constructed landfills and huge structures along with stone walls within the full tank level, thereby blocking the inflow and outflow of the lake, while there was a direction from the court to restrain themselves from constructing the structures. The bench remarked that it was necessary to have an onsite inspection and necessary action will be taken against the offenders.
Constructions around water body: HC overrules registry’s objections
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Monday overruled objections of the registry in a PIL filed by human rights and consumer protection cell trust regarding construction of buildings in the Rammammakunta water body, full tank level and buffer zone in Gachibowli village, Serilingampally mandal. The registry refused to number the petition on the ground that the issue was governed by a judgment of the court. When the matter was heard on Monday it was brought to the notice of the court that the present action occurred after the disposal of the earlier petition and thus the present petition is maintainable. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Tukaramji directed the authorities to maintain status-quo in the lake with regard to construction.
Look into ownership issue, Sangareddy collector told
Justice K. Lakhshman of the Telangana High Court on Monday allowed a writ petition and asked the Sangareddy collector to consider afresh, ownership of 11 acres of land in Kalvakuntla village. The judge disposed of the writ filed by Sri Siva Sai Construction, which questioned the non-removal of land from the prohibited list. The petitioner purchased the said 11 acres from Voltas in an auction. Earlier, a writ petition was allowed by the High Court at the instance of the petitioner. The court had ruled that the government was party to proceedings before BIFR and the original owner of the property and Voltas, from whom the petitioner purchased it, had become sick. Justice Lakshman pointed out to the various orders in favour of the petitioner, and, accordingly, directed the petitioner to make a fresh online application. He urged the district collector to dispose of the matter in eight weeks after affording opportunities to the parties.
Security services entitled to MSMED Act provisions: HV
Justice Madhavi Devi declared that a security service is entitled to take recourse to provisions of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Development Act, 2006. The judge allowed a writ petition filed by Surabhi Security questioning the order of the MSME Council ruling that it had no jurisdiction since security service does not come under manufacturing or service related to industries. Sagarika Koneru, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that Section 18 of the MSMED Act, 2006 envisages that the petitioner falls under the jurisdiction of the medium scale enterprises facilitation council and the council erred in ruling that it has no jurisdiction. The dispute will now have to be considered by the council on merit. It was the case of the petitioner that it had extended security service to SMR Vinay Fountainhead. which failed to clear the pending arrears.
