High Courts have no territorial jurisdiction, rules Justice Lakshman
Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court held that the High Court of a state will have no territorial jurisdiction if no part of the action complained has occurred within its territorial jurisdiction. The argument that the establishment of High Courts for each state is more for the convenience of natives of said states and does not inhibit the High Court from dealing with matters and that the limitation of territorial jurisdiction imposed is only meant for the people and not to legal issues was rejected by the judge. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by K. Padmaja, who sought a 10-month extension of the licence period and for refund of Rs 9 lakh GST and reduction of the licence fee for the loss sustained by her due to the renovation work undertaken by Central Railway, Pune division. V.T. Kalyan argued that in as much as no part of the cause of action occurred within the state and the writ petition ought to be dismissed. The contract was supposedly entered into in Pune. In a 19-page order, Justice Lakshman surveyed the case law on the subject. He referred to multiple judgments of the apex court and said that there is ‘no cause of action, much less, part of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction’. The court accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
RR collector summoned in contempt case
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Friday summoned the Ranga Reddy district collector, revenue divisional officer and tahsildar to be present before the court on April 24 in a contempt case. Earlier, a writ petition was filed by Pratap Jungle Resorts and two others for issuance of e-pattadar passbook for an extant of 20 guntas. A writ appeal was filed by the government challenging the order on the ground that a civil suit for declaration of title is pending in the trial court. The order of the single judge was upheld in the writ appeal confirming that the e-pattadar passbook was not proof of real title and a suit could go on. This order was again challenged in the apex court that modified the order by putting a condition that e-pattadar passbook should contain an endorsement about the pendency of the suit and restrict alienation to third parties. Counsel for the petitioner argued that revenue authorities were not complying with the Supreme Court order even two years after its clarification. The government pleader contended that the inclusion of endorsement will take some time and requested the court to grant four weeks for issuing e-pattadar passbooks. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji, summoned the revenue officers if they failed to oblige within the stipulated time. The court will continue to hear the matter on April 24.
HC questions authority of ministers to approve CDP proposals
Justice Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court on Friday directed the government pleader to get instructions in a writ petition questioning the action of the government in authorising ministers in-charge for approving work proposals under constituency development programme (CDP) for MLA/MLC constituency. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by M. Raghunandan Rao, a BJP MLA. The petitioner questioned the action and listing all the works under CDPF arbitrarily without any consultation to the respective MLAs with malafide intention to deprive MLAs/MLCs the right to furnish works under CDP. Senior counsel B. Rachna Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the sanctioned CDP amount was being spent on works that were not mandatory and as per the whims and fancies of leaders from the ruling party. The amounts that are being sanctioned are being spent on ruling party members and not on public welfare. The matter was adjourned at the request of the government as the advocate general had to appear in the matter. The matter was adjourned to April 7 for further hearing.
Orders reserved on a college’s take on attendance of students
Hearing a lunch motion on Friday, Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court reserved for orders a writ petition challenging the action of Pendekanti Law College in-charge principal in not forwarding the petitioner’s candidature for the forthcoming semester examination scheduled to commence on April 19. The official had cited shortage of attendance as the reason. Counsel for the petitioner contended that attendance was not recorded in biometric pattern by the college despite it being mandated by Osmania University authorities. On the other hand, the counsel representing the college stated that in the absence of any instructions from the university, the college cannot implement biometric attendance. The petitioner disputed that no attendance was maintained by the college, and it was a colourable exercise of power to halt him from appearing the exams and declare that the petitioner did not have the requisite attendance.
