Hyderabad: Telangana High Court Justice J. Sreenivas Rao released bail to the ten standard students charged. The judge is dealing with a criminal petition filed by the student, represented by his mother, who is charged with crime under the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecutors claimed that in March 2024, a GHMC driver found an unidentified man near a garbage collection site in Hamal Basthi, a railway dormitory, and reported the incident to police, resulting in the registration of the case. The petitioner argued that he had been wrongly implicated and was detained in judicial custody since his arrest the same month.
The petitioner’s lawyer also pointed out that the petitioner was a student of 10 standards and the investigator had submitted the charge form.
The lawyer also noted that all other defendants of all other defendants in the case were granted bail earlier. Taking these factors into account, the judge amplified the petitioner under certain conditions.
HC rejects canteen contract’s plead challenging ruling
The two-term panel of judges in the High Court of Telangana rejected the writ appeal of the distribution of canteen contracts at the Nalgonda Government General Hospital (GGH).
A panel of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Judge Renuka Yara heard the writ appeals filed by Krishna Constructions and Amrutha’s cafeteria. The appellant argued that the single judge ruled that the tender process followed by the hospital authorities was neither arbitrary nor illegal, thus insisting on the decision to award the contract to Prasad Tiffins, who agreed to match the highest bid, albeit initially citing the lower amount.
The appellant argued that they cited the maximum rent of Rs 48,000 per month, while the winning bidder initially quoted Rs 33,000 per month. The appellant claimed that the contract was unfair and violated the principles of natural justice. However, the Panel noted that the Appellant’s failure to submit a mandatory food safety permit was a crucial requirement under the tender process.
Due to this non-compliance, the tender committee (including additional collectors and hospital principals) disqualified the appellant. The team further found that authorities negotiated with Prasad Tiffins to meet the highest bid, ensuring no economic losses to the state.
The observation of judicial intervention in bidding matters is limited, and the team observed that such administrative decisions should not be overturned unless clearly arbitrary or Mala Fide’s intentions. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Kishanbagh Temple Action Maintenance
The Telangana High Court rejected the challenging eviction process initiated to evict tenants of Kishanbagh Temple. The operation was initiated by the executive officer of Sri Murali Manohar Swamy Temple in Kishanbag, Hyderabad, against tenants who occupied temple land.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka handled the writ filed by Brij Gopal Heda, who tried to expand the lease but faced an eviction notice from the temple authorities. The property, with a size of 3,433 square yards, was originally leased to the petitioner’s father, Sri Sita Ram Heda in 1980.
Over the years, rents have increased, and the lease lasted for a month after Elder Heda died in 2020. However, the judge noted that the petitioner did not have a valid lease agreement in his name and noted that the donor commissioner had rejected his request for extension in 2021.
The judge ruled that the petitioner could not claim any rights regarding the donation of property without proper authorization and to uphold the right of the temple authorities to recover the land.
Order request for HMDA for land sale
The Telangana High Court reiterated that serious matters of fact cannot be determined in a written petition. The panel, composed of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Judge Renuka Yara, upheld the judge’s decision, who dismissed the appellant’s challenge to sell 1,210 square feet in Kancha Gachibowli, RR district.
The appellant attempted to declare the sale of the land to the private party of HMDA illegal, believing it included 30 feet of public roads adjacent to his plot. The court pointed out that the existence of the road itself was a dispute, and a contradiction between the claims regarding the investigation number and the effectiveness of the layout approved by local authorities.
The panel also noted that the appellant failed to place the necessary parties (such as the Regional Collector and GHMC) in the original written petition. The panel addressed through Justice Renuka Yara, and observed that the appellant had other legal remedies, including seeking relief in the civil court. The court rejected the public interest claim, saying no other landowner objected to the government’s sale of the land.
