Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court will hear a writ petition challenging the GHMC's alleged actions of dispossessing a government doctor of his property by constructing a community hall in 2005. Justice K. Lakshman is hearing the plea filed by Dr. Birjisunnisa, who argues that the GHMC's actions in taking over his property in Turabnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, were arbitrary, illegal, and violated Article 300A of the Constitution, which guarantees the property right. The petitioner is seeking the restoration of 215 square yards of land and the consideration of a representation made in July 2018.
During the hearing, the judge questioned whether the petitioner could pursue the claim under Article 226, which allows writ jurisdiction for the enforcement of fundamental and constitutional rights. The court noted that property disputes, particularly those involving recovery, are typically better suited for civil courts. The petitioner contended that in a democratic country, the government could not arbitrarily seize private land, especially when no third-party interests were involved. The judge emphasised that writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for determining property declarations or recovering possession. The petitioner requested more time to present relevant judgments. The case has been adjourned for further hearing on Tuesday.
No to Bar without license
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises, seeking permission to continue operations of Le Vantage Café and Bar amid a dispute over the renewal of its 2B licence. The writ plea filed by Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises alleged that officials from the excise department sealed the café on October 4, 2024, without prior notice, panchanama, or acknowledgment, which the petitioner claimed violated Rule 9A of the Telangana Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005. Rule 9A allows for deemed renewal of licences upon compliance. In response, the assistant government pleader argued that the petitioner’s licence had expired and that despite multiple notices in 2022-23 and 2023-24, the required documents for renewal were not submitted. Additionally, the petitioner's lease agreement had expired, and the landlord had not consented to the café’s continued operation.
While the judge noted the lack of a show-cause notice to the petitioner regarding the alleged violations, the petitioner contended that renewal fees had been paid, and the licence had not been formally rejected under Rule 9A. However, the judge clarified that the amended Rule 9A, which allows automatic renewal, did not apply to the current case. Although the judge initially directed authorities not to interfere with the café's operations without following due legal process and instructed the Telangana Beverages Corporation’s excise depot to temporarily supply stock, the case was ultimately dismissed. The court upheld the excise department’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims.
Furniture supplier seeks reimbursement
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a plea challenging the alleged withholding of `64.14 lakh due for services rendered during the 2021 elections. The writ petition was filed by Kamtikar Sainath, the proprietor of Bajrang Suppliers. The petitioner claimed that a work order was issued by the returning officer and the revenue divisional officer of Huzurabad, and `64,14,935 was due for the services provided.
Despite several representations to the state, the petitioner argued, no action had been taken. In response, the state contended that only approximately `25 lakh was found to be due and payable to the petitioner. Authorities stated that payment procedures had been initiated, with a token raised in October 2024. Previously, the court was assured that the admitted amount would be paid by the end of 2024. However, on Tuesday, the government requested 10 more days to remit the admitted due. The judge has posted the matter for hearing on January 9.
Seizure of lorry with rice challenged
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court has taken up a plea challenging the actions of the deputy tahsildar of Manakondur mandal, who seized a lorry with 580 bags containing approximately 304 quintals of rice. The rice was being supplied by a business owner from Kammepalle village in Narsampet. The writ plea, filed by Tadaka Sathish, claims that the deputy tahsildar seized the lorry under panchanama, alleging that the petitioner was purchasing PDS rice from cardholders and profiting by transporting it to Maharashtra. The petitioner pointed to a registered crime case in his defense.
Sathish is seeking a declaration that rice and paddy are not essential commodities under Section 2A of the Essential Commodities Act, and as such, the Act’s provisions should not apply to the storage, movement, and transportation of rice. He further sought a declaration that the Telangana State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2016, does not apply to his rice, making the seizure of both the rice and vehicle by the respondent illegal and outside the jurisdiction. The judge directed the government pleader to seek instructions on the matter and scheduled the next hearing for a later date.
