GHMC, MAUD faulted for defaulting on incentives after acquiring land
Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court faulted the GHMC and the municipal administration and urban development (MAUD) department for not disbursing the promised incentives to owners, whose land was acquired by the authorities. Subbagari Ramakrishna Reddy, owner of a land parcel situated at Amberpet, along with other landowners, approached the court alleging that certain portions of their land holdings were acquired by the authorities for road widening. At the time of acquisition, the authorities, through a letter in April 2023, had assured the petitioners that the adjoining land would be converted from a water body to multi-zone purpose use. The petitioners alleged that their land was subsequently acquired but the incentives were never extended to them. The petitioners had made several representations bringing to the notice of the authorities about the pendency of incentives promised to them but their pleas went in vain. Per contra, the authorities submitted that certain permissions were yet to be approved by the irrigation department. It was contended by the respondents that their incentives would be processed as and when the said approvals were granted. After hearing both the parties, the court directed the authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners, failing which personal appearance of principal secretary of MAUD and commissioner of GHMC would be mandated.
Engg. college challenges restriction of seats
Justice C.V. Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court entertained a writ plea filed by Stanley College of Engineering and Technology for Women seeking to enlarge its net engineering admissions. The petitioner challenged the decision of the authorities in restricting the intake of seats in the ensuing counselling for the academic year 2024-25. The petitioner complained that the authorities have limited the intake to 300 seats for the BE CSE (computer science and engineering) programme, 60 seats for BE CSE (artificial intelligence and machine learning), and 90 seats for BE CSE (artificial intelligence and data science) programmes against the approved intake limit. The petitioner complained that such restrictions were in contradiction of the extension of approval granted by the AICTE. The judge, considering the submissions, directed the respondents to obtain instructions and posted the matter to Tuesday.
HC orders notice to I&PR chief in contempt case
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the principal accountant general (A&E) and the commissioner of information and public relations (I&PR) department in a contempt case relating to payment of pension and other benefits to a 73-year-old retired deputy director. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by Rangasai Bhatt, who was appointed as an artist and had worked for 33 years till attaining the age of superannuation with the respondent department. The petitioner alleged that the respondent authorities wantonly failed to comply with the orders passed by the judge in an earlier writ plea. Earlier the judge directed the respondent authorities to count the qualifying service of the petitioner as 30 years of service from the initial date of his appointment for the purpose of calculation of pension and other benefits. The judge directed the respondent authorities to pay the benefits to the petitioner as per his entitlement within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner alleged that despite directions, the respondent failed to comply and were guilty of contempt. Accordingly, the judge ordered notice to the respondents and posted the matter after four weeks for further adjudication.
Couple questions IVF hospital’s violation of ART Act
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea for reading down provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) (ART) Act, 2021. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by a couple aspiring to conceive a child through assisted reproductive technology. The petitioners contended that the petitioner no. 1, the wife, aged 45 years, despite being within the prescribed age limit, was refused treatment by Nova IVF Hospital on the ground that petitioner No. 2, the husband, over 55 years, was not within the prescribed age. It was the case of the petitioners that ART could be availed individually by either of the two seeking the treatment and falling within the prescribed age under the Act, and a bar under cannot be made applicable in a situation where either the man or woman is within the age limit prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. The petitioner sought support in this contention through the latest judgment of the Calcutta High Court delivered in April, which ruled that Section 21(g) makes no difference between a woman, who approaches a clinic for taking resort to ART individually, and a woman, who is one of the spouses of a commissioning couple, approaching a clinic for similar purposes, and contended that the same view should be employed in the case of the petitioner’s plea. The court, hearing the plea of the petitioners, granted an additional time of one week to the respondents for receiving instructions and adjourned the matter.
