Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed NIMS Hospital Hyderabad to immediately consider a case for kidney transplantation within seven days. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by a kidney donor and the receiver. It is the case of the petitioners that the donor is the biological brother of the donee, a trecenarian woman; however, their names in the Aadhar card do not reflect the same father’s name. Counsel for the petitioner T. Rahul contended that due to poverty. the sister was fostered by the maternal aunt and therefore the surnames of the siblings were different in their respective records. He argued that to ascertain the biological relation NIMS conducted a DNA-based HLA test, Lymphocyte cross-match test, donor specific antibodies detection test, and many others, and thereafter gave a “certificate of genetic relationship”. The petitioner complained that even after scientific confirmation of the relation between the siblings, NIMS was not taking any decision on surgery for kidney transplantation. Rahul said the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 permitted any near relative to donate a kidney. The hospital having been confirmed they are biological siblings, failed to respond on the representation for performing the operation. Per contra, counsel representing NIMS and the health department suggested that an undertaking be given by the petitioner to the hospital about their relationship. The judge accordingly directed the petitioner to give an undertaking and further directed the hospital to forthwith consider the case of the petitioners.
Hostel welfare officer seeks reinstatement on acquittal
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court directed the commissioner, SC development department, and other authorities to consider the representation of one R. Mothya Naik, hostel welfare officer Grade II under dismissal, for reinstatement on acquittal in a criminal case. The judge took on file a writ plea of Naik, who challenged the action of authorities in not considering his application for reinstatement despite his acquittal by the Telangana High Court in a criminal appeal. The petitioner alleged that the action of the authorities in not considering his representations for reinstatement was illegal and in violation of the Constitution. It was the case of the petitioner that while the termination was based only on the sentence, his services could not be terminated once the punishment had been set aside. After hearing the petitioner, the judge disposed of the writ plea after directing the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
HC to examine case of misuse of powers under GHMC Act
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the action of GHMC in demolishing the compound wall of the petitioners at West Kakatiyanagar, Malkajgiri. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Annamma Koshy and Thomas Koshy. The petitioners alleged that the respondent authorities demolished the compound wall at their residence, which was constructed 41 years ago, without any notice. The petitioners further alleged that the respondent authorities illegally interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment by invoking jurisdiction under Section 405 of the GHMC Act, 1955, which envisaged that the commissioner may without notice, remove anything erected, deposited, or hawked or exposed for sale in contravention of the Act. The petitioner contended that the conduct of the respondent authorities was arbitrary and illegal. The judge, after hearing the petitioners, directed the government pleader to get instructions and posted the matter after two weeks.
Contempt case against land administration chief in promotion case.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the chief commissioner of land administration (full additional charge) and another in a contempt case. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by Koukuntla Janaki, tahsildar of Charminar mandal. The petitioner alleged that the authorities had deliberately failed to comply with the orders of the court. Earlier the judge directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for promotion in accordance with law for the post of deputy collector as was done in the cases of similarly placed person in other departments. The petitioner alleged that despite the orders, the respondents failed to consider her representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the judge ordered notice and posted the matter for further adjudication.
