Telangana Legal Briefs | State’s reply sought on non-constitution of new animal welfare board
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a80bb/a80bb3e419c91bf8ca7a927891556b1aa9c36853" alt="Telangana Legal Briefs | State’s reply sought on non-constitution of new animal welfare board Telangana Legal Briefs | State’s reply sought on non-constitution of new animal welfare board"
HYDERABAD: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the government to file its reply with regard to the allegation that although the tenure of Telangana State Animal Welfare Board [TSAWB] was over, no new board has been constituted. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a PIL filed by Humane Society International/India. It was the case of the petitioner that the state had failed to ensure compliance of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Dog Breeding and Marketing Rules 2017, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Pet Shop Rules 2018. The petitioner sought reconstitution and speedy operation of TSAWB/state board in terms of the PCA Pet Shop Rules 2018 and the Dog Breeding and Marketing Rules 2017. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to carry out an awareness campaign/drive and issue necessary circulars/office orders to clarify the process of registration of pet shops and dog breeding centres with the TSAWB as per the PCA Act/Rules to encourage legal operations. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the period for which TSAWB was constituted was over and no new board has been constituted, as yet. The panel accordingly directed the additional advocate general to take instructions on this aspect and to deal with this aspect in the counter to be filed. The panel posted the matter to March 6.
Supply of school uniform under judicial scanner
The Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea challenging the actions of the Karimnagar district education officer, who sought recovery of ₹7,80,200 and threatened to revoke a school’s recognition. Justice T. Vinod Kumar admitted a writ plea filed by St. John’s High School, Karimnagar. The dispute arose from allegations that the petitioner institution, which runs both aided and unaided sections, failed to comply with the guidelines for supplying uniforms. The respondents issued proceedings demanding the recovery amount and accusing the institution of violating uniform distribution rules under an educational scheme. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violated the constitution. It was claimed that the scheme cited in the notice did not specify any obligation to restrict the supply of uniforms exclusively to students from the aided section. The petitioner contended that the notice lacked clarity regarding the scheme or its clauses mandating such restrictions. Earlier, the judge observed that the matter required further examination and, therefore, stayed the proceedings against the petitioner institution. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.
Prosecution of extramarital relationship accused stayed
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court stayed criminal proceedings in a case of alleged sexual relationship against assurances of marriage. The petitioner alleged that a false case was foisted by the complainant with ulterior motives. It is the case of the petitioner that both the petitioner and the de facto complainant are married. They are in extra-marital relationship since eight years and the relationship between them is consensual and present complaint is filed by alleging that, though the petitioner promised to marry her, he failed to fulfill his promise. The petitioner contended that being aware of her subsisting marriage and her acts, she cannot claim to have been deceived by such a promise of marriage made by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner Y. Soma Srinath Reddy relied on a recent judgement of the Supreme Court with regard to a similar incident and held that, “a married woman having three children, it cannot be said that she acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of facts while giving the consent to have sexual relationships with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she lodged a complaint in 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her construe such allegations as 'rape' by the appellant, would be stretching case too far. The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was mature and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of the act she was consenting to”. Justice Sridevi accordingly stayed the proceedings and ordered notices to the complainant.