HYDERABAD: Justice M. Sudheer Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences and Kakatiya Medical College (KMC) on a writ petition filed by suspended PG medical student Dr M.A. Saif, and directed them to file their reply. Dr Saif was challenging the suspension order issued by the KMC Principal, alleging that it was in violation of the National Medical Commission Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges and Institutions Regulations, 2021. The respondents argued that the petitioner was a prime accused in the suicide case of a female PG student, Dr D. Preethi, and there were legitimate reasons for his suspension.
Habeas order given in baby’s case
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court entertained a habeas corpus writ petition for the production of a ten-month-old infant. The bench of Justice K. Lakshman and Justice P. Sree Sudha directed the police to trace a missing child and produce it before the court. The bench was dealing with a petition filed by Asireddy Sravani complaining that her husband Anreddy Laxman Reddy had forcefully taken their child, Mahadevan Reddy, from her custody. Counsel for the petitioner argued that though police were informed about it, they failed to take any action to get the child back. The bench directed the police to produce the child along with the respondent, the father, on June 26.
HC waits for SC order, dismisses plea
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Thursday refused to entertain an application made for the reopening of a public interest litigation (PIL) on the regularisation of an illegal construction. The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji was hearing an application to reopen a PIL pertaining to regularising illegal constructions made in the GHMC area. The bench on an earlier occasion had closed the PIL by observing that a writ petition was pending before the Supreme Court with the title ‘Juvvadi Sagar Rao v. Union of India’ and others wherein, the state of Telangana had been impleaded as respondent No. 5 and the states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh as 6 & 7 respectively. It was deemed appropriate to close all the petitions. After the Supreme Court toik a decision on the petition, it shall be for the parties to seek consequential relief, if any, by approaching the government authorities. On Thursday, the bench reiterating the same dismissed the prayer for reopening of the PIL. The bench also made it clear that earlier orders passed in the petition would operate until the Supreme Court took a decision.
Govt told to reassess disciplinary order
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the vice chairman and managing director of the TS Civil Supplies Corporation to reexamine the termination of the services of an employee. The petitioner, P. Muthaiah, assistant grade II, had challenged an order of dismissal from service passed in December 2016. He had been placed under suspension in 2014 and charged with misappropriation of essential commodities. The petitioner denied the charges. He contended that when he was in-charge at Mothkur, rice stocks were unloaded in a godown without being weighed by the workers. The inquiry against him formed the basis of his dismissal. It was also alleged that he had engaged private persons to operate, in contravention of the official circular. Insofar as the allegations of forgery were concerned, the court found contraventions in the official version. The judge analysed the inquiry report and said that the finding required reexamination. The judge disposed of the writ petition in part, requiring the corporation to reexamine the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in conformity with principles of natural justice, within a period of four weeks.
SC to hear petition in Dastagiri on July 3
Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court on Thursday granted two weeks in a case challenging the pardon granted to Sk Dastagiri, approver in the Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy murder case. Y.S. Bhaskar Reddy, recently arrested father of MP Y.S. Avinash Reddy, and M.V. Krishna Reddy, the victim’s PA and first informant, had filed criminal petitions challenging the pardon granted by the Kadapa magistrate court to Dastagiri, who was Accused No. 4. In their separate petitions, they contended that Dastagiri was allowed by the CBI to turn approver to implicate the other accused; the agency did not oppose his anticipatory bail application. When the matter came up for hearing on Thursday, counsel for the petitioner said that Bhaskar Reddy was not arrayed as accused and no chargesheet had been filed against him. He requested the court to hear the matter subsequent to the filing of the chargesheet. Counsel appearing for Dr Suneetha Narreddy informed the court that Krishna Reddy had filed a clarification petition before the Supreme Court asking who could challenge the pardon order; this would be taken up for hearing on July 3. The court while observing that the case was sub-judice posted it for hearing on July 11.
HC upholds penalty on Dr Reddy’s Labs
A bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court upheld the action of the income-tax department in imposing a penalty on Dr Reddy's Laboratories, and dismissed a writ plea filed by the company questioning the proceedings issued by the appropriate authority. On a survey operation, the revenue authorities found that the petitioner failed to deduct tax at source on remittance by foreign entities, UCB in Switzerland and Belgium, to the tune of over '3,50,000 crore for 2015-16. Proceedings were issued to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioner. Much later, the two entitles filed applications before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR). The revenue authorities contended that the delay in disclosing such information was deliberate. In 2018, DRL petitioned the assessing officer to keep in abeyance the notice as no limitation was prescribed for an order to be passed for the failure of such remittance. The assessing officer opined that the order must be passed within “reasonable time” and passed the assessment order under challenge in December 2018. The officer found that the amount remitted would be chargeable to tax in India as royalties and not capital gains. The revenue authorities contended that the action of the petitioner fell within the ambit of failure on its part to make TDS remittances and therefore the order impugned was valid in law. The bench upheld the plea of the revenue authorities and in a detailed order dictated in open court dismissed a writ petition.
