Telangana HC slams HYDRAA’s ‘unilateral’ demolitions

Justice K. Lakshman questioned the agency’s authority to unilaterally demolish structures without following due process, warning that such arbitrary actions cannot be tolerated in a democracy. Summoning HYDRAA inspector Rajasekhar, the judge reprimanded the agency for bypassing legal procedures, ignoring civil suit pendency, and failing to adhere to GO No. 99, issued on July 19, 2024.

The writ plea was filed by one Alagari Praveen, who argued that he had legitimate ownership of the land through a registered sale deed and had secured approvals for construction, including conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural land on July 5, 2023, and building permissions on November 15, 2023, before the Muthangi gram panchayat was merged with Tellapur municipality.

Despite these legal clearances, HYDRAA proceeded with the demolition on January 31, 2025, without issuing a fresh notice or conducting an inquiry, ignoring the petitioner’s explanation dated January 7.

The government pleader contended that HYDRAA had never previously demolished structures except in cases of road encroachments. The agency defended its actions by citing a layout, which the petitioner strongly opposed, arguing that it was based on an unapproved layout signed by a sarpanch without authority. The petitioner also alleged that fraud was committed to facilitate the land grab.

The judge questioned the actions of HYDRAA asking its authority to interfere in overlapping and land disputes of private properties. The judge asked the officials to explain why they had failed to consider the pendency of two civil suits before passing the demolition order.

Additionally, the judge noted that the petitioner’s building permission had been unlawfully cancelled by the panchayat secretary on January 11, 2025, raising concerns about the legality of the agency’s actions.

“You cannot rely on an unapproved layout and demolish private property without proper authority,” the petitioner argued in court.

With several legal and procedural violations coming to light, the judge adjourned the case for 10 days, directing the agency to file a detailed counter before the next hearing.

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside the demand of Telangana State Road Transport Corporation’s (TGSRTC) for a retrospective licence fee from a stall operator at jubilee bus station (JBS), Secunderabad. The judge ruled that the demand was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was asked to pay a licence fee from a period before he was given possession of the premises. This decision came in response to a writ plea filed by one M. Vittal challenging the corporation’s order directing him to pay the licence fee from January 6, 2024, despite the stall being handed over to him only on April 12. The petitioner contended that he could not be asked to pay for a period when he had no access to the premises. On the contrary, the standing counsel for RTC argued that the petitioner entered into an agreement on April 4, 2024, which specified the licence period as January 6, 2024 to January 5, 2029, making him liable to pay the fee from the earlier date. However, the judge found that the petitioner’s possession began months later, and no prior notice was issued before enforcing the payment. Citing Supreme Court rulings on the principles of natural justice, the judge held that the demand was untenable and thereby quashed the order passed by the corporation.

Past criminal cases no bar for recruitment: HC

The Telangana High Court reiterated that a candidate cannot be disqualified solely on the basis of past criminal cases, especially if they had resulted in acquittal. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka directed the authorities to appoint a candidate as a stipendiary cadet trainee sub-inspector (Civil) after his selection was previously cancelled due to past criminal cases. This decision came in a writ plea filed by one M. Kamalakar, a BC, who applied for the position of SCT SI/RSI following a recruitment notification in November 2011. However, his selection was later cancelled through a memo citing his involvement in two criminal cases. The petitioner contended that these cases were falsely lodged due to political and village rivalry. He was 17 years old at the time of the 2001 case and 21 years old during the 2004 case. He was acquitted in both cases in 2005 and 2007, well before the recruitment process began. He argued that his name had been wrongfully implicated and that these past cases should not have been used to disqualify him. Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, an employer must assess the nature of the acquittal and consider whether the charges were baseless before taking a decision on employment. Furthermore, the petitioner emphasized that under Clause (xiv) of Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, all past records of a child under the juvenile justice system should be erased except in special circumstances. Since the petitioner was a minor in one of the cases, his past record should not have been held against him. The petitioner earlier challenged the cancellation of his selection before the administrative tribunal, seeking a direction to Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (TSLPRB) to reconsider his representation. Despite this, the authorities again rejected his claim through a memo stating that he had attempted to suppress the information in his attestation form. The petitioner argued that he omitted the details under a bona fide impression that his acquittal meant he did not have to disclose them. Later, on July 2, 2024, the petitioner voluntarily submitted details of the past cases. However, his request for reconsideration was denied again. The judge held that cancellation of the appointment was unjustified, as the petitioner had been acquitted years before applying for the post, and there was no suppression of material facts.

HC slaps Rs 50,000 costs on contractorfor ‘frivolous’ petition

The Telangana High Court imposed a heavy cost of ₹50,000 on a civil contractor for alleging that a senior official of a government board secured employment using a fake engineering certificate. Justice K. Lakshman was dealing with a writ plea filed by one Mohd. Niazuddin. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge held that the allegations were frivolous and baseless, emphasising that the petitioner had no locus to challenge the credentials of the officia . The judge noted that the named official V. Vinod Bhargava, presently chief general manager at HMWSSB, had indeed passed B. Tech (civil engineering) in 1996, as confirmed by JNTU, Hyderabad. The judge further observed that the petition was a misuse of judicial time and lacked merit. The judge dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to pay the costs to the Telangana High Court Advocates Association within 10 days and submit an unconditional apology.

Paramotor pilot granted bail in sexual exploitation case

Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted bail to a paramotor pilot accused of sexual exploitation in the name of marriage. The judge was dealing with a criminal bail petition filed by Sukumar Das Prabhu, who was arrested in a crime registered at Gachibowli police station. According to the prosecution, the accused was alleged to have sexually exploited the victim under the pretext of marriage while concealing the fact that he was married and had three children. When the victim confronted him, the accused abused her in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Despite these allegations, the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the relationship between him and the victim was consensual since 2022. The petitioner further contended that all material witnesses were already examined, and his continued detention was unnecessary. The petitioner also submitted that he had been in judicial custody since February 3, which was causing hardship to his family. Counsel for the de-facto complainant opposed the bail, contending that the accused had abused and threatened the victim. The additional public prosecutor also objected, contending that the investigation was still on and bail should not be granted at this stage. After considering the submissions and reviewing the material on record, the judge observed that the petitioner and the victim had been in a consensual relationship since 2022. Considering that the petitioner had been in custody since February 3, and the material part of the investigation was completed, the judge deemed it fit to grant bail subject to conditions.