The petitioner contended that authorities illegally dug a canal through his land without issuing a notification or providing compensation.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court reaffirmed the need for government officials to strictly adhere to approved government projects and land acquisition processes. Justice K. Lakshman delivered a common order in two writ petitions and a contempt case concerning the deviation of a sanctioned irrigation canal plan in Vanapatla village, Nagarkurnool district.
The writ petition, filed by one K. Mohan Krishna, alleged that government officials had altered the original canal alignment, leading to unauthorised land acquisition and the loss of agricultural land. The petitioner contended that authorities illegally dug a canal through his land without issuing a notification or providing compensation.
He further claimed that officials had ignored several representations opposing the deviation. The judge reviewed the reports, including a vigilance & enforcement (V&E) investigation, which confirmed deviations from the approved alignment.
As a result, the judge directed the authorities to inspect the land, conduct a survey, and acquire the affected portion by paying compensation within three months. The contempt case was filed against many officials for allegedly violating a court order that restricted excavation to the approved alignment.
The petitioner argued that officials continued to dig the canal deviating from the sanctioned plan. After hearing both sides, the judge ensured that affected landowners, where the canal is being dug, would be compensated while clarifying that those who have already accepted payments cannot seek land restoration.
Writ against non-availability of Telugu jail manual for prisoners
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a plea challenging non-accessible prison manual for all prisoners and the public in Telugu. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by G. Jabali, advocate. The petitioner challenged the practice of not maintaining copies of the prison manual in all prisons and the failure to upload neat, readable copies of the English manual. He also complained that the authorities were not uploading the Telugu edition on the official Telangana prisons website. The petitioner would contended that the manual is neither a secret nor a prohibited document, it is a public document and should be easily accessible by all, including prisoners, legal professionals, and the general public. The petitioner also contended that even after 76 years of independence, a Telugu manual copy is still unavailable anywhere. It is the case of the petitioner that this issue is particularly significant in a state like Telangana, where a large portion of the population relies on Telugu for communication. The counsel appearing for the state sought time to file their response.
HC not to interfere in SCCL’S disqualification of IDL
The Telangana High Court refused to interfere with the disqualification of IDL Explosives Ltd. from participating in tenders of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), citing its prior ban by Coal India Limited (CIL). A two-judge panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, dismissed two writ appeals filed by IDL Explosives, challenging an earlier common order passed by a single judge, who rejected its plea against disqualification. IDL Explosives Ltd., manufacturer and supplier of industrial explosives, was banned by CIL from participating in its tenders due to alleged violations related to local content certification. Following this, SCCL disqualified IDL Explosives from its tender process, relying on Clause 17(b) of the revised tender conditions, which allowed SCCL to accept or reject bids from banned entities at its discretion. The petitioner company challenged its disqualification by filing writ pleas on inter alia grounds that the initial tender did not contain Clause 17(b), which was later added in the revised version. However, the single judge dismissed the writ plea ruling that interference was not warranted since SCCL's operations were critical to coal production and power generation across Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. Aggrieved by the dismissal, IDL Explosives filed writ appeals before a division bench. Senior Counsel S. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, contended that Clause 17 (b) of the tender was modified in the revised tender to give discretionary power to SCCL to accept or reject bids in view of any banning order. Such a clause did not exist in the initial tender. The senior counsel also contended that the decision-making process is malafide and that the same happened without application of mind. No reason was provided to justify the disqualification. The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that third-party interests had already been created as nine companies secured tender allotments. Any intervention would disrupt coal supply and power generation in multiple states and that the CIL ban was still in force, justifying SCCL's decision. After hearing both sides, speaking for the panel, the acting Chief Justice refused to interfere, holding that setting back the clock and directing the respondents to issue fresh tenders would affect the industry as an activity of great public interest is being carried out. The panel observed that supply of bulk explosives was essential, and any sort of interference would have an adverse effect. The panel also observed that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution was discretionary and in the peculiar facts of the case and stage of the tender process, it did not deem fit to interfere. Accordingly, the panel dismissed the writ appeals. However, the panel did not give any inference as to the banning imposed by CIL and left it open to be decided by the competent authority.
Ensure pensionary benefits to retired lecturer, HC directs OU
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed Osmania University to take appropriate steps to correspond with the Maharashtra government and facilitate the transfer of the required pension funds of a lecturer. The judge took on file a writ plea filed by Dr Sa Majeeb Bear, seeking a directive to Osmania University to process and settle his pensionary benefits for services rendered as a lecturer at Maulana Azad College of Arts, Science, and Commerce and Dr Rafiq Zakaria College for Women in Aurangabad from 1978 to 1997. The petitioner contended that these posts were pensionable as per a resolution by the Maharashtra government and the Maharashtra Civil Service Rules. The petitioner opted for pension benefits to be processed through Osmania University instead of Aurangabad, a decision confirmed by the joint director of higher education, Aurangabad. However, Osmania University denied the claim, citing GO dated January 20, 2006, which required the payment of pension contributions along with interest. The university argued that without the transfer of the capitalised pension value from the previous employer or payment by the petitioner, his past service could not be considered for pensionary benefits. The petitioner issued legal notices in 2018, but his claim remained unresolved. The judge noted that correspondence between Maharashtra’s higher education department and Osmania University confirmed that the petitioner’s post was pensionable and that a contribution had been deposited in the Aurangabad treasury. The judge observed that the university failed to follow up adequately to secure the transfer of funds. Holding that the petitioner should not suffer due to bureaucratic delays, the judge disposed of the writ plea, directing the university to take appropriate steps for facilitating the pension to the petitioner.
