The Telangana High Court restrained several medical colleges from demanding differential fee and halting students from attending classes under the pretext.
The Telangana High Court restrained several medical colleges from demanding differential fee and halting students from attending classes under the pretext. A panel of acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, hearing a writ appeal filed by Advaita Shankar and others, challenging the dismissal of their writ plea by a single judge. The students argued that their admission was based on a fixed fee structure, and the sudden demand for additional payment midway through the course was arbitrary and financially burdensome. Senior counsel S. Ravi, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that the single judge earlier granted an interim order allowing students to pay a partial fee while their writ petition was under consideration. After the writ petition was dismissed, this protection was lifted. Senior counsel emphasised that
enforcing the fee hike at this stage would cause severe hardship. The panel directed the respondent institutions to file their response. To protect the interests of the appellants, the panel directed the respondents to permit students to continue their studies without any hindrance and barred them from collecting any additional fees until further hearing.
Contempt Notice for Agri Officials
Justice T. Madhavi Devi ordered notice to the principal secretary, agriculture and cooperation, and the commissioner of cooperation & registrar
of cooperative societies in a contempt case pertaining to implementation of a pay fixation order. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by B. Aruna, joint registrar of cooperative societies and managing director of Telangana State Cooperative Union. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ plea challenging the rejection of her claim for pay fixation on par with her batch-mates from April 21, 1990. The judge found that the petitioner was granted seniority on par with her batch-mates and was thus entitled to seek pay parity and consequential benefits. The petitioner alleged that despite the categorical directions passed by the judge in the writ plea, the respondent authorities had failed to comply with the order.
HC Sets Aside SBI’s E-Auction Notice
Justice T. Vinod Kumar faulted the SBI for e-auctioning properties of a company in violation of law prescribed and declared by the apex court. In a judgment of far-reaching import, the judge declared that the powers of the directors suspended during liquidation can still maintain against the actions of the secured creditors “if they negatively impact the liquidation process or interest of the other creditors.” The judge allowed the company application filed by Shra Energy Private Limited challenging the authority of the bank in initiating sale of property at Patancheru. The petitioner pointed out that his offer to pay Rs 30 crore under one time settlement was better than the Rs 25 crore offered in the e-auction. The bank argued that since it stayed outside the liquidation process, it could independently bring to say the property under the provisions of the Sarfaesi (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act. The court found that since the official liquidator got into the shoes of the company, the secured creditor was required to issue notice to the borrower (official liquidator in this case). The judge also junked the defence of the bank that nonissuance of notice would not be fatal to the auction. Agreeing with the official liquidator,the judge said that hisright to submitobjections or avail remedies under theSarfaesi Act, stood negated.
Student Accused of Kidnap Gets Bail
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao granted bail to a student accused of kidnapping and marrying a minor girl. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Pawar Vinod. The prosecution alleged that the victim, a minor, went missing in February, leading to the registration of a case. The petitioner contended that the victim was not a minor, relying on a bonafide and conduct certificate issued by MPPS-Sarjaraopet. The petitioner pointed out that he and the victim married in February 2025. The prosecution cited the victim’s SSC certificate, which recorded a different date of birth. The judge observed that even according to the SSC certificate, the victim was over 16 years old. The judge also took note of the petitioner’s long standing relationship with the victim and the fact that the petitionerhad been in judicial custody since February.
