A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court clarified that the order of a single judge relating to the management of Mahbub College will not be interpreted by any party in their favour.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court clarified that the order of a single judge relating to the management of Mahbub College will not be interpreted by any party in their favour. The panel of acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara held that the order was restricted to the interface between statutory authorities for the purpose of protecting the status of the educational institution. The management of the Mahbub College, arguably one of the oldest education institutions in the state, is engaged in a legal battle with Venkata Narayana Educational Society (VNES). Earlier, a single judge of the court disposed of a writ plea file by the college that alleged that VNES had unlawfully taken control of the credentials and goodwill of Swami Vivekananda Institute of Technology (SVIT) and email access, preventing them from complying with JNTU and AICTE requirements. Counsel for the petitioner argued that SVIT, with 1,800 students, was unable to upload the required documents for the academic year 2025-26 due to an internal conflict between Mahbub College and VNES. The dispute traces back to a licence agreement signed between the petitioner and VNES in 2015, which the petitioner claims was terminated in October 2024. However, VNES contested the termination, leading to several legal battles, including arbitration proceedings and pending civil suits. Due to the ongoing legal conflict, JNTU and AICTE had refrained from taking action. The judge directed JNTU to grant edit access to Mahbub College and instructed AICTE to restore the institution’s original registered email ID and provide new credentials. In its appeal against the order of the single judge, VNES contended that the order amounted to an order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It contended that the perception of equity seemed in favour of a society that had come to the court with unclean hands and devoid of facts. By virtue of the order, the erstwhile management was empowered to manage albeit in a limited manner on behalf of the college contrary to the agreements between the parties. Speaking for the panel and disposing of the appeal, acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul made it clear that the order permitting the writ petitioner to interact with statutory bodies was strictly restricted to the need for acquiring necessary permissions and affiliations, and was not even an amber signal in favour of either parties. The panel also recorded that such an order was being made in the unique facts and circumstances of the case and would have no value of precedents or preference.
New panel to probe infant’s death
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the constitution of a new medical expert committee to reassess allegations of medical negligence that led to the death of a newborn at Sri Mahalaxmi Children’s Hospital in Mancherial. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the mother, Allam Nagalaxmi, who challenged the relevance of the earlier medical reports. The petitioner contended that her son born prematurely was admitted to the hospital based on assurances of advanced neonatal care. She alleged that the hospital lacked essential medical facilities like ABG testing, which could have potentially saved the child. Further, it was discovered that a BAMS-qualified doctor was overseeing the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), despite lacking specialised paediatric training. A series of medical committee reports concluded that there was no medical negligence. However, the petitioner claimed that these reports were biased and failed to acknowledge critical facts, including the absence of key medical personnel during crucial moments. The CCTV footage allegedly indicated discrepancies in the statements provided by the hospital staff. On the other hand, the unofficial respondents defended their actions, contending that the reports exonerated them. They cited Supreme Court judgments to argue that doctors cannot be held liable unless clear evidence of negligence exists. It was further alleged that the petitioner’s husband, a police circle inspector in Mancherial, had attempted to influence the investigation and had even caused a disruption at the hospital. After hearing both sides, the judge found substantial concerns regarding the credibility of the earlier reports and ordered a fresh independent inquiry by a specialist panel from Niloufer hospital, Hyderabad. The new committee has been directed to submit its findings within a month, and the matter was posted for further hearing after four weeks.
Chargesheet late, bizman gets bail
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted bail to businessman Gunda Suresh, an accused in a large-scale investment fraud case. According to the prosecution, a joint complaint was filed by Chirumamilla Siva Prasad and Druppy Yerra, along with other victims, against Ankura Corporate Solutions and its directors. The complainants alleged that they were defrauded of approximately ₹3.77 crore after investing in the company’s share market scheme, which promised high returns. On investigation, it was found that the firm was a fraudulent company. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and was merely investing in shares through broking firms. He claimed that financial losses during the Covid-19 pandemic had led him to borrow from investors, which escalated due to high interest. It was further alleged that the investors were blackmailing him using blank cheques and promissory notes. The additional public prosecutor opposed the bail petition, citing the seriousness of the allegations. The judge observed that the petitioner has been in custody for over four months without a chargesheet. Considering that the crucial part of the investigation was completed, the judge deemed it a fit case for granting conditional bail.
