Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court will hear the writ plea of a final-year medical student challenging the refusal to restore his attendance for a period of seven months by the state medical authorities and others. Justice K. Lakshman took on file a writ plea filed by M.A. Saiff Ali, claiming that his attendance from February 22 to October 3, 2023, was unjustly marked as absent allegedly due to a suspension order issued on June 9, 2023, which the petitioner contended was later set aside by the High Court. The petitioner alleged that despite the High Court’s order, the principal of Kakatiya Medical College failed to restore his attendance, leaving him 13 days short of the mandatory requirement of 80 per cent attendance. Counsel for the university justified the attendance deficit, stating that the petitioner was absent for 21 days after the suspension period ended, alongside other attendance shortfalls. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the college administration did not permit the petitioner to attend classes even after the suspension was set aside, leaving him with no recorded attendance for that specified period. This, the petitioner argued, effectively nullified the earlier High Court order. The respondents argued that a criminal case alleging abetment of suicide was pending against the petitioner, with the chargesheet already being filed. The judge, after hearing the arguments, posted the matter for further hearing on Monday.
Petition alleges foul play in land acquisition
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea alleging that land acquisition, ostensibly meant for constructing a public service road, is being misused for the benefit of a private party. The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by D. Hymavathvi Reddy, challenging the actions of the Siddipet district collector regarding the disputed land acquisition. The petitioner alleged that the acquisition process lacked proper authorisation and scrutiny. In the proceedings, preliminary and gazette notifications submitted to the court claimed that the land was being acquired for public purposes but the petitioner disputed this. She contended that the true intent was to serve the interests of a private entity. The petitioner had raised objections before the revenue divisional officer (RDO) on September 6, 2023. The RDO reportedly submitted a report to the collector, who granted approval without due diligence or application of mind. The government pleader requested two weeks to seek further instructions. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter.
Acquire private land for DRDO by law: HC
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict an order of a single judge requiring the acquisition of over 12 acres of land at Raviryala, Maheshwaram, which houses the DRDO premises, a sensitive defence unit in the city. Earlier, the government of India was allotted about 2,408 acres of land on lease for the purpose. About 16.1 acres was disputed as private land leading to a civil decree in favour of the owner. In 1996, a decree recognising private rights and requiring the government to move for acquisition, if required, was made. A single judge allowed the writ petition and imposed a cost of `one lakh on the Central government, which was left to decide on initiating land acquisition proceedings. In appeal, the panel of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao set aside the costs of `on1 lakh. However, the Central government would be at the losing end since the panel permitted the decree holder to file a suit for recovery of damages.
Ignorance of duty no ground, says HC
Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court ruled that ignorance and unawareness of statutory duty is no ground to circumspect legal mandate. The judge made the observation, while dealing with a writ petition filed by Kanakadurga Girijana Mahila Isuka Quarry Labour Contract Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited. The society, consisting of manual labourers, approached the court alleging that Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (TSMDCL), having statutory onus of obtaining environmental clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), had failed to obtain the same expeditiously. It was the case of the petitioner society that the consent for operation and establishment granted by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TGPCB) had expired and was yet to be extended. The petitioner contended that the onus was on TSMDCL to obtain such permissions as mandated by the Telangana State Sand Mining Rules; failure to obtain such permission was arbitrary and illegal. After hearing the parties, the judge observed that ignorance of the statutory duty is no ground to circumspect the legal mandate. Thus, the judge directed TMSDCL to file an application before the competent authorities within two days and further directed the authorities to dispose of the applications in accordance with the law, within seven days from the date of receipt of the application.
