Hyderabad: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea challenging a recovery order issued by the ministry of tribal affairs under the national overseas scholarship (NOS) scheme. The impugned order sought recovery of a scholarship amount from an assistant professor, who allegedly failed to complete the course and was employed in the department of environmental science at the Central University of Rajasthan. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by the assistant professor Dr. D. Bhagawan, who contested the legality of the ministry’s demand for repayment of ₹15,21,651, comprising the scholarship amount and the cost of an air ticket, calling it arbitrary, illegal, and a violation of the Constitution. The petitioner further alleged that the impugned order was issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice, as it required repayment within two months without proper notice or a hearing. The ministry argued that the NOS scheme guidelines explicitly stipulated that beneficiaries who fail to complete their overseas education programme must return the entire scholarship amount. The respondents emphasised that the petitioner was fully aware of this condition at the time of availing the scholarship. During the hearing, the petitioner contended that he should only be liable for the unspent portion of the scholarship and not the entire amount, describing the recovery demand as excessive. The judge found the recovery order consistent with the scheme’s terms and directed the petitioner to repay the full amount of ₹15,21,651 as per the NOS scheme guidelines. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the writ plea.
Statutory non-compliance complaint lodged against firm
A commercial complaint against statutory non-compliances by Pinnacle Capital Solutions Private Limited came up for hearing before the Telangana High Court. According to Virinchi Capital Private Limited, the writ petitioner, a representation bringing to the notice of the authorities of large-scale statutory violation went in vain. This led to filing of a writ plea challenging the actions of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in not initiating any action against Pinnacle Capital Solutions. It is alleged that the firm had failed to comply with RBI guidelines dated September 2, 2022, related to digital lending and on June 8, 2023, pertaining to default loss guarantee. The petitioner alleged that the unofficial respondent failed to comply with the guidelines dated 8.6.2023, particularly Clause 6 that puts a cap on the total amount of DLG, which a regulated entity can impose on lending service provider, the petitioner in this case. Senior counsel Avinash Desai, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out the letter of the unofficial respondent wherein it is admitted that the unofficial respondent was withholding a greater amount of the DLG as against a maximum of five per cent stipulated under clause 6 of 2023 guidelines. After hearing senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the judge observed that the petitioner established a prima facie case for grant of interim relief and accordingly passed an order directing RBI to consider the representation. The judge admitted the writ plea and ordered notice to the respondent authorities. The matter is posted for further adjudication.
Woman, daughter acquitted of murder
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside a sentence against a mother and her daughter convicted by the criminal court for the murder of the husband of the former. According to the prosecution, Shantamma and her daughter Sangeeta, murdered Balappa in May 2014 as he was an addict and was harassing them. The autopsy showed that the cause of death as “homicidal asphyxia due to cardio respiratory arrest caused by strangulation”. The two were convicted on the basis of the evidence. Advocate T. Bala Jayasree, appearing on behalf of the legal services committee, pointed out that the version given by the witnesses was contradictory and could not be relied upon. The evidence of the crucial witness, according to the panel of Justice K. Surender and Justice Anil Kumar, created any amount of doubt regarding his evidence being correct about entering into the house and finding the dead body. Speaking for the panel Justice Surender said, “The prosecution case cannot rely on circumstances which are loosely knit and there being several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution. The prosecution version should always be convincing and without an element of doubt or suspicion. As already discussed, the delay of nearly 34 hours in lodging the complaint is not explained. The accused though in the village and not absconding they were not arrested. The alleged surrender before the police is after the extra judicial confession made to PW.7 who is not acquainted with accused Nos.1 and 2. No convincing reasons are given as to why the accused would go to PW.3 and confess about the alleged murder”.
