Legal Briefs | Medico challenges Kaloji varsity’s decision to deny her readmission
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea challenging the actions of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences in rejecting the readmission of a medical student. Justice T. Vinod Kumar took on file a writ plea filed by Dr Devi Sushma Nallakukala seeking a directive to the university to readmit her so as to enable her to complete the remaining two years of her MD Microbiology course. The petitioner alleged that Gandhi Medical College had unjustly treated her absence during the pandemic as unauthorised, and prevented her from continuing her studies in the second year. The petitioner argued that the actions of the respondents violated the principles of natural justice, as no prior notice was served upon her, resulting in the loss of valuable academic years. The petitioner contended that the seat allocated for the academic year 2019-20 would go waste if she was not permitted to resume the course. She pointed out that the respondent’s move to cancel her admission under the guise of rules and regulations violated UGC guidelines and an apex court order issued during the pandemic. The matter has been posted for further hearing.
HS sets aside land acquisition award
Justice K. Sharath of the Telangana High Court set aside a land acquisition award of a property of over 300 sq. yds at Madhapur. The judge directed the HUDA land acquisition officer to conduct a fresh enquiry under the old land acquisition act. City resident N. Madhavi moved the High Court stating that she was the owner of 575 sq. yd of land in Madhapur and a part of her property was proposed to be acquired for a road in 2005. On coming to know of this, the petitioner filed a representation along with a copy of the sale deed before the land acquisition officer. The land compensation award related to land for the purpose of acquisition for laying a road from Hitec City to the western side of Durgam Cheruvu road. The petitioner’s land in Sy No. 43, that the case of the petitioner had no occasion to participate in the enquiry under Section 5- A of the Act and consequent to the draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act was contrary to the procedure and the nil award in respect of the subject property was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner requested that the court set aside the same by allowing the writ petition. The judge agreed with the contentions and pointed out that the land acquisition officer should have given an opportunity of personal hearing before the land acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the judge ruled that the authorities have to conduct land acquisition enquiry from the stage of Section 5-A of the Act. He also directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of personal hearing.
Action of assistant registrar of chits challenged in HC
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the action of the assistant registrar of chits, Khammam district, in refusing to refund 11 security deposits. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Sarasa chit fund company, alleging that the respondent had failed to refund security deposits received from the petitioner company at the commencement of the chit series. The petitioner stated that they had filed an application for winding up of the chit fund company before the registrar of chits but was not considered by the authority. The judge orally observed that chits may be wound up either by the registrar on his own motion or on an application by non-prized or unpaid-prized subscriber under Section 48 of the Chit Funds Act 1982. The judge also observed that a chit fund on itself cannot file for winding up of the chits. The judge directed the respondent to file an affidavit explaining the claim of refund/repayment made by it to the petitioner company and posted the matter for further adjudication
HC junks plea on hoarding in SCB
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of over 25 writ petitions challenging the notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) for removal of rooftop hoardings. It was contended that in the showcause notice that there was no structural stability to the hoardings and also that they carried a shabby look in the area. The writ petitioners, who carried the advertisement hoardings, pointed that there have been hoardings in the area for the last two decades and permission was granted by the board earlier. It was so contended that the board could not have any grudge against the hoardings at Metro Rail pillars as they were supported by structural stability certification. Refusing to interfere with the process, the judge pointed out that it was a policy decision and therefore the court could not interfere. The judge, however, permitted the petitioners to make a proper representation for extension and for the authorities to consider the same.
