HYDERABAD: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Vishwapragathi Vidyalayam challenging the closure of the school premises by the Karimnagar district educational officer (DEO) and other authorities. The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to reopen its school, located at H. No. 21206/A/3 Gandhinagar at Huzurabad, which was sealed by the DEO and mandal educational officer (MEO), Huzurabad. The petitioner claimed that the action contradicted the provisions of the Telangana Education Act, 1982. However, the judge was not convinced by these arguments. The judge pointed out that a notice was issued in 2022, yet the school had failed to take any corrective action. One of the primary reasons for the closure was the absence of a fire safety NOC, a crucial requirement under government regulations. Despite being aware of this deficiency, the petitioner did not obtain the necessary NOC nor had they submitted the registered lease deed for the property to the respondent authorities. The judge emphasized the risk posed to the students, stating, “You are playing with the lives of toddlers,” and pointed out the Supreme Court’s guidelines on fire safety, which mandate sealing of schools without proper fire safety measures. The judge also criticized the petitioner for delaying the matter since 2023, stressing the safety of the 220 students enrolled at the school
HC not to interdict with Adilabad collector’s order
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict with an order of the district collector of Adilabad, who upheld an eviction order passed by the special deputy collector. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Peerala Pedda Swamy. It is the case of the petitioner that his late father had purchased agriculture land from the respondent’s grandfather admeasuring Ac.12.5 Gts situated at Gangannapet village of Utnoor mandal in Adilabad district in March 1959. Since then the father of the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is further contended that subsequent to his father’s death, the petitioner had taken possession of the subject land and had been cultivating the same without any interference. The grievance of the petitioner is that in 1973 a suo-moto proceeding was initiated by the special deputy collector challenging possession of the subject land, wherein the grandfather of the respondent admitted the execution of sale, the special deputy collector (SDC) without considering the said admission passed an illegal order holding that the said transfer was invalid as it is in contravention of Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1959. Thereafter, unofficial respondents approached the district collector of Adilabad and filed an application challenging the order passed by the SDC upon which impugned orders were passed in August 2019 upholding the orders passed by SDC allegedly without considering the fact that the said orders had lapsed as "not acted upon." However, the respondents argued that the sale contravened APSALTR, which forbids land transactions from tribal to non-tribal to protect tribal ownership rights. The judge dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner’s failure to challenge the 1973 order through appropriate legal channels or exhaust statutory remedies under APSALTR. The court relied on various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of utilizing statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Businessmen arrested with banned drugs granted bail
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court granted bail to two businessmen, allegedly found in possession of 36 grams of cocaine, 110 grams of MDMA, nine ecstasy pills, six LSD blots, 30 gms of charas, 34 gm of meow-meow, five cell phones, a car and other material, along with other accused. The judge was hearing a bail petition filed by Anas Khan and Saif Khan. Counsel for the petitioners argued that his clients were innocent and falsely implicated. The counsel also pointed out that petitioners do not have any criminal history and investigation into the case was underway. It was also brought to the notice of the judge that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since August. The additional public prosecutor opposed the application stating that serious allegations were levelled against the petitioners and the probability of them committing similar offences in case they are released on bail were high. After hearing the parties, the judge observed that no criminal antecedents were reported against the petitioners and since they were remained in judicial custody since August, the judge deemed that it was a fit case to grant conditional bail to the petitioners.
