Hyderabad: The two-judge vacation group of the Telangana High Court directed the National Fisheries Development Commission and the Ministry of Fisheries to reconsider the representative of a financial official in Hyderabad. The panel consisting of Justices S. Nanda and J. Sreenivas Rao also announced the possibility of maintaining the writ appeal in the intermediate order. The panel is dealing with a writ appeal filed by B. Sushma. The appellant will argue that she was appointed to represent the senior senior director for three years, and under the date order dated October 26, 2023, 2023 and December 7, 2023, the NFDB suddenly rejected her representatives for extended replies and subsequently on April 28, 2025 for the Apply of Appelliv of Appelliv s of Appelliv srifniv sniverniv. On April 24, the failure to provide any substantive reason only stated that her request was not approved by the competent authorities. Earlier, a writ petition was filed to file a lawsuit challenging the denial with a judge in which both parties were directed to maintain the status quo until the next hearing date. However, the appellant challenged the interim order, believing that the status quo order effectively allowed the order to take effect, thus defeating the purpose of her written petition. Judge Nanda said on the bench that the intermediate order had a “end quality” and seriously affected the rights of the petitioner. The court ruled that until November 2026, her request for an extension was arbitrary, lacking proper reasons, and violated the principles of natural justice. The panel relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized that decisions that affect civil rights must provide sufficient reasons. The Panel noted that even if the interim order had a direct adverse effect on the parties, an appeal could be made under Article 15 of the letter. The bench quoted a landmark decision from the Supreme Court, reiterating that “any order from judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority should be supported on grounds.” The panel therefore put aside the status quo order, allowing her representative to extend the request to forward it to the competent authorities within a week, taking into account her original terms of appointment and ensuring a reasonable decision.
HC rejects bail in Rs 25 drug case
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court sat on vacation on Tuesday and rejected a bail lawsuit involving a defendant involving high-profile drugs, involving the illegal manufacturing of 132 kg of Alprazolam under the NDPS ACT, a spiritual alprazolam that far exceeds the 100g commercial quantification limit. The judge is dealing with a plea filed by Vasamsetti Naresh, charged with second place. The petitioner’s lawyer believes that there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner, nor anything recovered from him. He noted that the prosecution failed to review any independent witnesses, and the witnesses reviewed were witnesses of interest. He further stated that the Tax Intelligence Agency (DRI) could not imply the petitioner in this case based on the plea statement of the co-defendant. It is also believed that he may be released on bail because there is no possibility of an appeal in the end. DRI argued that in a search conducted on December 12, 2016, the defendant was present and admitted that he adopted manufacturing equipment under the lease/agreed and used equipment available in the factory premises to manufacture Alprazolam. Justice Lackshman upheld the strict provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act Bail Conditions, stressing that unless the court considers “reasonable reason” to believe that the defendant is innocent and that no crime is committed during bail. The prosecutor’s specific argument was that the petitioner was an expert in alprazolam production and, with his aid and assistance, the principal defendants and others made the above-mentioned drugs in the name of producing Dothiepin. The judge dismissed the bail application, saying: “The court must reasonably satisfy the defendant’s innocence on the crime on the surface. If the court believes that the evidence against the defendant is strong and may be guilty, the bail may be denied. The complainant has been in jail for 23 months. This is a abandonment of him.
