Hyderabad: Justice K. Sarath of the Telangana High Court on Saturday restricted income authorities, thereby interfering with the property in the Hakimpet village of Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, and cited earlier court orders and ongoing disputes over border divisions. The judge passed an interim order through a House motion, challenging the defendant authorities’ actions in attempting to revolve around corporate property, despite the temporary direction. The petitioner’s lawyers believe that officials are trying to surround the fences starting April 17 around the land surrounding the petitioner’s land of about 28 acres and 27 guntas, and such actions are believed to have violated an early interim order adopted by the High Court on April 2, 2009 and constituted an illegal intervention in the possession of the petitioner. On the other hand, the government defense lawyers held that the fence activity was related to the 12 acres of land in the investigation No. 102/1 located in the same village, rather than the land held by the petitioner. He asked for time to come up with detailed counters on the matter. The judge noted that after the submissions of both parties, there was no material indicating that the authorities were currently interfering with the petitioner’s land. However, in order to prevent any potential property violation, the judge directed the defendant authorities not to interfere with the petitioner’s property in the investigations of 102/2 and 102/3 until further orders.
HC rejects DOC’s request for transfer order
Justice Pulla Karthik of the High Court of Telangana rejected a writ request from a senior professor to challenge her transfer from Niloufer Hospital in Hyderabad to MGM Hospital in Warangal as part of a general transfer last year. The judge is handling a writ filed by pediatric professor Dr. A. Vijayalakshmi, trying to shelve the transfer order issued under a consultative meeting held in July 2024 in July 2024. The petitioner attacked the transfer process to arbitrarily and violated the government order of 3 July 2024 to responsible employees to drive and act, which orders are in the conduct and action and are commissioned for disease and disease and disease in the condition and disease. The petitioner argued that she was not included in the official portal’s mandatory transfer list and did not exercise any preference. She believes that the notice issued in July 2024, which convened the 11th hour cadres for consultation, was illegal and deprived her of a fair opportunity and aimed at selectively exempting certain people. The petitioner believes that the immunity was approved without proper verification and that her claim was not considered. The medical department and other authorities believe that the petitioner has completed more than six years of service at her current station and is included in the long-term list based on the station’s qualifications. It was also noted that the petitioner attended the consultation meeting and chose to publish it at the MGM Hospital in Warangal, and therefore assigned to her. The judge noted that the petitioner participated in the consultation and chose a place to publish voluntarily. The judge also noted that the exemption granted to three professors, including informal defendant Dr. R. Vinod Kumar, under the government direction, was a government direction applicable to the recognized seniors in the office of the Employee Association. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgments, these judgments restrict judicial intervention on the issue of transfer, unless Mala Fides is determined, the judge held that the petitioner failed to show any Mara Fide’s intention or statutory violation in the transfer order and dismissed the writ request.
HC checks the tenderness of milk
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the High Court of Telangana extended interim relief on the order, challenging the cancellation and reconciliation of the transport contract for milk to the Anganwadi Centre. The judge is handling a written petition filed by Ushodaya Transport Solutions, challenging the action of Telangana Dairy Development Cooperation United Ltd. to cancel the bidding that floated on October 11, 2024 to transport milk to humans, Nirmal and Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Districts. These tenders are part of a larger contract that covers 35,700 Anganwadi centers across the state. The petitioner believes that the cancellation was conducted without a reason to allocate, and then issued a new tender notice for 24 districts on January 18, excluding the areas where the previous tender was tendered. The petitioner requested the announcement of the cancellation of the original tender and deemed the issuance of the new tender as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner urged the court to direct the defendant to grant the initial bid for the three districts, based on the submitted valid bid. After hearing the preliminary debate, the judge pointed out that the petitioner cited the lower tax rate (Rs 4.15 per unit) while other areas that were finalized rupees quoted Rs 4.17, while the bidding for Manchester Rial, nirmal and yadadri bhuvanagiri was allegedly cancelled due to the lower quotation. In view of the above, the court earlier adopted an interim order that restricted the tenders issued by respondents under a notice issued on January 18 until further hearings. The court further expanded the interim relief and issued a further ruling on the matter, awaiting a detailed examination of the legality of the cancellation and re-leaning process.
Company Challenges SD Eye Hosp Bid
EV Venugopal of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a written petition challenging Hyderabad regional collector and hospital director’s ruling at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital in Mehdipatnam’s General Hospital Facilities Management Services. The judge is handling a writ filed by SS Consulting. The petitioner claimed serious violations and violations of the bidding specifications when awarding the contract to an unqualified bidder. The petitioner challenged the lawsuit issued by the payee on June 21, 2023 and the corresponding order of the hospital principal on June 21, 2023. Despite alleged non-qualification of mandatory technology bidding, these procedures granted electronic training contracts to provide hospital facilities management services to non-qualified bidders to provide services to non-qualified bidders. The petitioner believes that the unqualified bidder failed to submit valid documents and did not meet the eligibility criteria required for the E-Tender document. The petitioner will claim that, despite this, the authorities have ignored the valid and technically qualified bid submitted by the petitioner and continue to issue orders allowing the unofficial defendant to take over the hospital home. The petitioner prays to put aside the obstacles’ lawsuit and considers the instructions given to the authorities and grants the tender to the petitioner’s company. The judge issued the matter for further ruling.
