Hyderabad:Judge Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the High Court of Telangana postponed the hearing in a batch of written petitions, challenging alleged and assessing the collective-I Mains exam violations. Due to the lack of time, these matters were partially discovered and adjourned until June 11, 2025. The judge also directed TSPSC to produce the original mark of Bommu Poojitha Reddy in the sealed cover, which was allegedly manipulated and issued a notice to her. PS Rajasekhar, the permanent legal counsel of TSPSC, argued that the petitioner had contacted the court with unclean hands and ordered the petition to be dismissed. He argues that serious and unfounded allegations are being filed against the constitutional body without proving the core allegations of the Mark's styling. The permanent lawyer believes that the advantages of the case cannot even be considered unless the petitioner crosses the first threshold for proof creation. In a case involving a Rahul, he mentioned the order for the coordinate bench, in which the petitioner imposed a fee on the production of the document. The permanent lawyer believes that the same principles apply here. He pointed out that the person involved in the Marksheet issue was neither a petitioner nor a process was initiated. Senior legal counsel Rachana Reddy argued that the TSPSC filed manufacturing charges without proving them. She argued that one judge's order was not binding on another coordinate seat, citing the Supreme Court's precedent. She highlighted the inconsistency in the number of candidates taking the exam, noting that the number mentioned first was 21,075, but later rose to 21,085 in the General Ranking List (GRL) with no proper explanation. The Senior Legal Counsel also expressed concerns about the transparency and fairness of the assessment process, noting that the TSPSC has not disclosed the designated assessors for each medium, IE, Telugu, Urdu and English or its qualifications. Senior legal counsel argued that 40% of candidates wrote exams in Telugu and Urdu 11-12 and questioned whether the chief examiner was appointed for those languages. “With a 0.5-point difference, candidate rankings will rise by 5 to 10 positions, and failure to disclose the detailed information of the evaluator will undermine the integrity of the assessment process.” The senior legal counsel also noted that there is no OMR table, barcode and proper biometric tracking in the power supply, deeming that such procedural inadequacy allows the possibility of manipulation and undermine the credibility of the exam. Rachana Reddy, from the “Supreme Court Judgment of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya”, argued that if an appointment is made under the proceedings of possible fraud damage, all choices must be put on hold, or everyone involved suffers. Due to the lack of time, the judge posted the matter after the holiday.
HC maintains GST demand for GMR wings
The two panels of judges in the High Court of Telangana include acting Chief Justice Sujay Paul and Judge Renuka Yara for Rs 68.26, and the central authorities' requirement for the collection of annuity amounts received by GMR Pochanpalli Expressways (GST) in September 2017 and September 2022 in September 2022 in September 2022. Taxes and Customs (CBIC) have no jurisdiction. He argued that the state GST authorities had initiated and concluded a lawsuit within the same assessment year, namely 2018-19 to 2020-21, and subsequently deleted the display notice. Muralidhar refers to Article 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, stressing that once a lawsuit is initiated by an authority (in this case the state), the central authorities lack the power to reopen the same case. The team observed that GMR did not fully consider the objection raised by GMR in its reply to the display notice in its final decision order issued on February 26. The team said it was illegal to have Prima Facie Facie and therefore kept the oppressed demands running until further hearings. The group left an issue of alternative remedies.
Reimbursement of expenses before HC
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear writ requests from the Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology, challenging several government orders that prohibit the collection of tuition fees directly from students in the SC, ST, ST, BC, EBC and minority categories. The judge filed a writ request that the GO was unconstitutional and was in the scope of preventing the institution from collecting tuition fees directly from qualified students or their parents, which is also the state's Fee Repayment Program, also known as the Tuition Repayment (RTF) Program (RTF) Program. In its request, the petitioner argued that the victim order severely hindered the financial function of private educational institutions by postponing payments indefinitely, leaving institutions dependent on the state’s delayed reimbursement. The petitioner believes that such restrictions violate equal rights and the right to practice any profession or to engage in any profession in the Constitution. Additionally, the institution seeks instructions from the defendant authorities to pay the entire tuition to the institution immediately after the student is allocated, but before they actually enroll into the 2025-26 school year. The petitioner argues that the instructions sought will ensure that private institutions do not fall into financial difficulties while fulfilling their social welfare obligations. The petitioner's lawyers believe that while the RTF program is designed to ensure equitable higher education opportunities for disadvantaged students, the current implementation delays in reimbursement and banning direct charges have become a debate between the government and private universities. The judge issued the matter for further trial after the government defense lawyer sought time to obtain instructions from the defendant authorities.
Firm cases in Chinese applications are alleviated
Judge Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court dropped the alleged criminal proceedings in a case related to the infamous Chinese micro-loan app scam. The judge handled criminal petitions filed by Creditfox Private Limited and three other counts, allegedly participating in a network of fraudulent loan applications related to Chinese nationals. The judge found no documented substantive material to demonstrate the link between the petitioner and the alleged crime, including criminal conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code. The judge pointed out that China's investment in petitioners' companies is legal and made a formal report to the company registrar (ROC). The judge noted that despite more than two years of investigation, police found no victims and no evidence of crimes was shown. The witness’s statement confirmed the authenticity of the documents the defendant company relied on, prompting the deletion of allegations of forgery and cybercrime. The judge also considered a disciplinary lawsuit against the defendant's chartered accountant. The judge stressed the lack of the “conference of thought” needed to establish a criminal conspiracy, and therefore ruling that continuing the lawsuit would be an abuse process.
