Medico Objects to KMC’s Refusal to Return Its Participation

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court will hear the written plea of ​​a final-year medical student challenging the renewed rejection of her attendance for a period of seven months by the state health authorities and others. Justice K. Lakshman filed a writ plea filed by MA Saiff Ali, claiming that his attendance between February 22 and October 3, 2023 was unfairly marked absent, allegedly due to the petitioner’s restraining order issued on June 9, 2023. his claim was later struck down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner alleged that despite the Supreme Court order, the principal of Kakatiya Medical College failed to restore his attendance, leaving him 13 days short of the mandatory 80 per cent attendance requirement. University counsel justified the lack of attendance by stating, among other absences, that petitioner was absent for 21 days after the expiration of the suspension period. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the university administration did not allow the petitioner to attend classes even after the restraining order was lifted, leaving him with a recorded absence for the specified period. The petitioner argued that this effectively overruled the earlier Supreme Court decision. The defendants argued that a criminal case was pending against the plaintiff for solicitation of suicide and that the indictment had already been filed. After hearing the arguments, the judge sent the matter back to hearing on Monday.

The petition alleges foul play in land acquisition

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court filed a writ plea alleging that land acquisition, ostensibly for the purpose of constructing a public service road, was misused for the benefit of a private party. The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by D. Hymavathvi Reddy challenging the actions of the Siddipet district collector regarding the disputed land acquisition. The petitioner alleged that the procurement process lacked proper authorization and review. In the preliminary and newspaper notices submitted to the court at the hearing, it was claimed that the land was acquired for public purposes, but the plaintiff opposed this. He argued that the real intention was to serve the interests of a private organization. The petitioner had filed the objection before the divisional revenue officer (RDO) on September 6, 2023. The RDO reportedly submitted a report to the collector, who gave the approval without due diligence or thought. Government counsel requested two weeks to receive further instructions. Accordingly, the judge hung the matter.

Acquisition of private land for DRDO by law: HC

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court refused to block a single judge’s order requiring the acquisition of over 12 acres of land in Maheshwaram Raviryala, which houses DRDO facilities, a sensitive defense unit in the city. Earlier, the Indian government was allocated approximately 2,408 acres of land for this purpose. There was a dispute that approximately 16.1 acres was private land, which led to a civil decision in favor of the owner. In 1996, a decree was issued granting special rights and stipulating that the government would take action for acquisition if necessary. A single judge allowed the writ petition and imposed a cost of one lakh on the central government; The decision to initiate land acquisition proceedings was left to him. On appeal, the bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao set aside costs of ₹ 1 lakh. However, the Central government will be on the losing side as the bench allows the ordinance holder to file a suit for damages.

HC: There is no basis for dereliction of duty

Justice Moushmi Bhattacharya of the Telangana High Court held that ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding statutory duties are not grounds for disregarding statutory authority. The judge made this observation while considering a writ petition filed by Kanakadurga Girijana Mahila Isuka Quarry Labor Agreement Mutual Aided Cooperative Society Limited. The community of heavy laborers approached the court alleging that the Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited (TSMDCL), which has the legal responsibility to obtain environmental clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), failed to obtain this clearance quickly. The petitioner association’s position was that the operating and establishment permit issued by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TGPCB) had expired and was not extended yet. The petitioner submitted that the onus is on TSMDCL to obtain permissions required by the Telangana State Sand Mining Rules; failure to obtain such permission was arbitrary and illegal. After hearing the parties, the judge observed that ignorance of the statutory duty was not a justification for breaching the statutory mandate. The judge then directed TMSDCL to submit an application to the competent authorities within two days and also directed the authorities to dispose of the applications in accordance with the law within seven days from the date of receipt of the application.