Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, after hearing the HMDA commissioner, asked the government to issue its final notification notifying buffer zones over 2,525 lakes under the HMDA. The panel of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar was dealing with a PIL filed by the Human Rights and Consumer Protection Cell Trust challenging the illegal and unauthorised constructions by the National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management (NITHM) in the FTL buffer zone of Ramamma Kunta Lake. The panel heard HMDA commissioner Sarfaraz Ahmed who pointed out that according to the records there were 3,532 lakes under the HMDA area of which a preliminary notification of 2,525 lakes was issued. Advocate general A. Sudershan Reddy on instructions informed the court that steps are afoot to hear objections in issuing the final notification. The petitioner contended that on an earlier occasion the panel made it clear that “No construction can be permitted to be raised in the buffer zone of a lake,” and despite clear direction from the court, the NITHM proceeded to construct within the buffer zone of the lake, he argued. The advocate general also informed the court that the encroachments made in the buffer zone will also be removed and compliance will be reported to the court. The panel, accordingly, recorded the statement of the HMDA commissioner and directed the said exercises to be completed within three months and posted the matter to November 4.
HC directs SBI on collection agents
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the SBI to ensure its collection agents while making recoveries strictly follow RBI guidelines. The judge disposed of a writ plea filed by Medisetty Krishnaveni challenging the action of the SBI, Edi branch, Santoshnagar. The petitioner alleged that loan recovery agents were sent to her house without permission and harassed and humiliated her in front of neighbours and without adhering to the RBI’s Fair Practices Code for Transparency and Fairness. This was argued to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner obtained a car loan and was regularly paying installments as per terms of the agreement and only during the Covid-19 pandemic period, the RBI had imposed moratorium with regard to payment of loans by postponing the same and as such she was unable to pay the amounts and subsequently as per the schedule, she has been complying with the terms and conditions of the loan. She alleged that a notice was issued contrary to RBI guidelines apart from sending loan recovery agents to her house to harass her to pay due amounts as per the calculation of the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner was that the respondents are entitled to recover the loan amount after following due procedure under law but do not have any right to recover the loan amount using force. Stalling what the court dubbed as “aggressive recovery tactics adopted by the agents of Banks/Financial institutions lead to the landmark judgment in ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others, where the Supreme Court directed the banks/financial institutions to strictly follow the guidelines issued by the RBI”. “As the procedure adopted by the respondent No. 3 for recovery of the loan from the petitioner amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, this court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to ensure that the agents engaged by them for recovery of the loan amounts, shall strictly follow guidelines and instructions issued by the RBI and also the judgments of the Supreme Court,” the judge said.
HC to check plea on BRS MLA election
The Telangana High Court will examine an election petition filed challenging the election of BRS candidate Kova Lakshmi who was elected as Asifabad Assembly constituency ST MLA on December 3, 2023. Justice K. Lakshman was dealing with the plea filed by Ajmera Shyam from the Congress. The petitioner contended that Kova Lakshmi did not disclose her assets and liabilities as mandated in Form 26 of election affidavit. He argued that such a deliberate non-disclosure was illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought directions to declare her election as null and void. However, counsel for the petitioner placed on record the draft issues. Accordingly, the judge adjourned the matter to August 1 for framing of issues.
