Telangana Legal Briefs | Contempt notice to Revenue Secretary Arvind Kumar
The judge was dealing with a contempt case alleging deliberate non-implementation of earlier directions passed by the judge in a writ plea
HYDERABAD: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to Principal Secretary of the revenue department Arvind Kumar and other officials in a contempt case related to payment of ex gratia compensation. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by Taher Qureshi, alleging deliberate non-implementation of earlier directions passed by the judge in a writ plea. Earlier, the petitioner approached the High Court with a writ plea challenging the actions of the respondent authorities in not disbursing ex gratia compensation under GO dated June 15, 2015, after eight of his family members were washed away in heavy rains in 2020. The judge disposed of the writ plea, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation and proposals submitted in 2020 and 2021 for payment of ex gratia and other reliefs. The petitioner alleged that despite clear directions, the authorities failed to comply and are guilty of contempt. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge ordered notice to the respondents.
30-year-old litigation on contract workers back in Industrial Tribunal
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the Industrial Tribunal to reconsider an industrial dispute concerning the reinstatement of nine contract workers at the NTPC 400 KV Hyderabad substation. The panel, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with an appeal filed by the Power Grid Corporation of India. The case dates back to 1990 wherein nine contract workers were allegedly terminated without notice, leading to a protracted legal battle spanning over three decades. The Industrial Tribunal initially ruled in favour of the workmen in 1993, ordering their reinstatement. This order was subsequently challenged in various legal fora. The Supreme Court earlier remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the tribunal to expedite the process. However, the Power Grid Corporation of India, argued that the state government lacked the jurisdiction to refer the dispute and that the terminated workers were not its employees but were engaged through contractors. A single judge had ruled that all the issues raised in the writ petition were already answered in the earlier round of litigation and the state government is the competent authority to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The panel observed that the single judge ought not to have relied on findings from previous litigation. The panel said, since the earlier order of the single judge on a writ petition filed in 1994 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the tribunal for “fresh consideration on merits”, there was no justification in basing the impugned common order on the basis of those findings. The panel therefore, restored the writ petitions to their original numbers and urged a speedy resolution of the matter uninfluenced by its previous findings.
Writ against civil court judge junked
The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed against a judicial officer accused of corruption in connection with a civil suit. The case originated from a civil suit over property partition raised concerns about judicial integrity. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao was dealing with a writ plea initially filed by Bahbood Ali Khan, later contested by his legal heirs. The petitioner alleged bias against an Additional Chief Judge of City Civil Court of handling proceedings related to a long-pending civil suit and addressed a complaint in February 2021 before the vigilance department of the Telangana High Court, urging an investigation. The court, after perusing records, found no substance or evidence supporting the allegation. The panel observed that the judge in question presided over the case for only about 15 months, much of which was disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The court also observed that the key grievances of the petitioner stemmed from procedural decisions rather than any concrete proof of misconduct. The panel accordingly dismissed the writ plea observing “the petition fails to establish a strong case for the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
HC records undertaking on removal of advertisement hoardings
Justice Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on a writ plea filed by Telangana Outdoor Media Owners and 52 others against the commissioner and director of municipal administration, on the question of removal of advertising hoardings. The petitioners moved the court against the commissioner of the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Assets Monitoring and Protection Agency (HYDRAA) and others for failing to consider representations regarding the removal of advertisement hoardings, flexes, and structures despite payment of advertisement taxes up to March 31, 2025. The petitioners argued that multiple representations requesting the municipal authorities to halt the removal drive were ignored. The petitioner contended that the removal began on March 2 at Balapur Chowrasta, Hyderabad. Counsel for HYDRA K. Pavan Kumar had assured that petitioners need not worry if they have paid taxes up to March 31 as per the circular issued on March 4, which clarified that no further action would be taken until the new advertisement policy to be formulated by the state government is enforced. The court, while recording the assurance, deemed no immediate orders necessary and posted the matter for further adjudication, while directing the respondent authorities to seek further instructions.
Employee in narcotics case granted bail
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of Telangana High Court granted bail to a private employee accused in a narcotics case. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Sai Kishore Reddy. According to the prosecution, the petitioner who was apprehended at Bachupally Graveyard in February 2025, was found with five grams of dry ganja, while the co-accused No. 1 was in possession of four grams of MDMA and a mobile phone. A case was registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). The petitioner contended that the quantity of ganja seized was below the commercial threshold and had no criminal antecedents. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the court. The judge, after considering the fact that the petitioner was languishing in judicial custody since February 2025, enlarged the petitioner on bail subject to certain conditions.
