Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, composed of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Judge Renuka Yara, postponed hearings in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), involving the restoration of the legacy structure, especially the former British residential complex, including the Hashmatgunj Gate. The group is dealing with the Suo Motu PIL registered in Vasanta Sobha Turaga. The group had earlier directed the Government’s Heritage Director to submit a new affidavit detailing the nature of the work carried out in August 2023 after the photographs. A letter from Turaga to the court highlighted the deterioration of Hashmatgunj Gate on Badi Chowdi Road, Sudanese bazaar Khana. The petitioner also pointed out that the west wing of the gate collapsed due to neglect and urged the government to carry out a comprehensive restoration. The request also calls for the declaration of the complex as a protected monument, similar to the right of residence in Lucknow. Government defense lawyers have proposed that the latest status report on the restoration work has been submitted. Therefore, the panel appointed Vivek Jain as Amicus Curiae to assist the court and released the matter after the summer vacation.
Nodding trying to demolish temple shop
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court admitted that the frank municipality filed a writ request seeking to allow the demolition of 16 temple-owned shops to facilitate the town’s road expansion project. The city aims to demolish the eight floors and eight first floors of the north side of Sri Vishwanatha Swamy Temple, along with Ganga Reddy Road, extending the extension between Mukharam Chowrasta and the Indian petrol pile to 60 feet. These stores are owned by the Donation Department and are managed by Sri Vishwanatha Swamy Devasthanam. The petitioner believes that, in accordance with the Municipal Council resolution 419 of January 6, alternative land and structure will be provided to the affected parties. The judge directed the defendant authorities to seek instructions and submit their response by the next hearing day.
A careless doctor
High Court Justice Telangana’s Venugopal was accused of negligence in 2009 for the death of a patient, which brought a legal battle spanning a decade. The judge is dealing with a criminal amendment filed by Manimudra Vincom Pvt. The case originated from a complaint filed in 2013, four years after the patient died, alleging that negligent treatment of a doctor led to death. The petitioner believes that complaints are sometimes because the legal limit for such offences is three years. The court agreed, pointing out that the prosecution failed to justify the delay or proved that the delay was a “judicial interest” as stipulated in Article 473 of the CRPC. The judge stressed that there was no evidence of the doctor’s intention or serious negligence. The court observed that the doctor only conducted a diagnostic test and referred the patient to another expert, which did not equate to cheating or criminal negligence, thus involving the offences under the Indian Penal Code. The court refers to the various Supreme Court decisions, reiterating that criminal liability in cases of medical negligence requires a high threshold of “restrained or negligent” which does not exist here. Furthermore, the court noted that the complainant had already had a dispute with the state consumer dispute that had been awarded, indicating that the matter was more suitable for civil liability than for criminal prosecution. However, the judge further emphasized the difference between civil and criminal liability in cases of medical negligence. Therefore, the judge clarified that the findings in the Consumer Forum did not bind the criminal court because the standards of evidence vary greatly and by removing the criminal amendment from the allegations.
