Telangana Legal Briefs | HC’s Powers Can’t be a Bull in China Shop, Says Judge
Hyderabad: Justice Sujoy Paul of the Telangana High Court ruled that the court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction only on limited grounds. This is a trite law that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made, if an order is passed by the court having no jurisdiction, suffers from palpable procedural impropriety or a patent illegality.
Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. The power cannot be exercised like a ‘bull in China shop’ to correct the errors of judgment of the court acting within the limitation of its jurisdiction. He, accordingly, refused to interfere with orders of the XVII Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
The lower court allowed an application for substitution of legal representatives to set aside abatement of a suit, and to condone delay in filing the applications to bring the legal representatives on record. Tayaba Khatoon filed a suit in 2017 for eviction of the defendant. In 2023, an affidavit was filed stating that the defendant had died in 1989.
The plaintiff after coming to know about the death of the sole defendant, preferred the aforesaid application for substitution of legal representatives, etc., and clearly stated that the plaintiff was not aware of the death of Mohd. Masood Ali Khan and therefore, the delay in filing the applications for substitution of legal representatives may be condoned and abatement may be set aside.
The civil court allowed the application. The legal representative in the revision challenged the same. They would unsuccessfully contend that on the date of the institution of the suit itself, the sole defendant was not alive. Thus, suit proceedings itself became a nullity in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the question of substitution of legal representatives, condoning the delay, and setting aside the abatement does not arise.
Rejecting the stance Justice Sujoy Paul pointed out in the application preferred by the plaintiff that it was clearly pleaded that she came to know about the death of the sole defendant only when memo dated 11.08.2023 was filed.
The delay was properly explained, and the mistake was bona fide one made in good faith by impleading a deceased defendant in the suit originally instituted and added that the view taken by the court below while passing the impugned common orders aligns with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court.
HC gives 2 weeks to GHMC to implement its order
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging unauthorised construction of a community hall at Kushaiguda. The judge is dealing with a writ petition filed by Katta Venkata Nancharayya and another person.
The petitioner challenged the unauthorised construction of a community hall by the Teachers Colony Welfare Association at Sri Chakripuram, Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. It is the case of the petitioner that the community hall, built at the dead-end of a 30-foot road and in front of plots was illegal and violates the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act.
The petitioner contended that despite a speaking order was issued on February 29 directing action, no steps in furtherance of the same was taken by the GHMC to address the illegal construction.
During the course of hearing, the counsel for GHMC stated that a speaking order will be implemented and sought for adjournment. The judge, however, granted two weeks of time for the authorities to act upon the speaking order and posted the matter for further adjudication.
HC issues notice to state govt in contempt plea
Justice Pulla Karthik of Telangana High Court ordered notice to the Chief Secretary of Telangana’s general administration department, principal secretary of social welfare and tribal welfare department and other authorities in a contempt case pertaining to non-operation of merit list downwards and not recruiting the petitioners in the fall-out vacancies.
The judge is dealing with a contempt case filed by K. Manjula and 289 others that alleged deliberate non-compliance of the orders passed by the judge earlier.
Earlier, the judge in a writ plea preferred by the petitioners directed the respondent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioner for appointment in their respective posts against the fallout/relinquished vacancies, by operating merit list downwards, as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Munja Praveen and Others v. State of Telangana and others.
The petitioner alleges that despite directions to consider the appointment of the petitioners, the respondent authorities deliberately failed to comply and are guilty of contempt. Accordingly, the judge ordered notice and posted the matter for further adjudication.
