Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the High Court of Telangana dealt with a written petition filed by his parents, which challenged the alleged refusal of education for two underage sons at the international school in Nanakramguda, due to unpaid tuition fees. Although the court avoided relief, it provided the petitioner with freedom to contact the competent authorities with a detailed representative. The petitioner claims that the school has refused to take courses and exams to conduct unpaid since March 3. The petitioner believes that such actions constitute mental harassment and violate the Right to Education Act of 2009, the Telangana Education Act of 1982 and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act). He noted that the District Education Officer (DEO) failed to object to the alleged supply of debris on charges based on his agency made on July 23, 2024 on July 23, 2024. The petitioner seeks instructions from the authorities to take immediate action on the school and allows the children to continue to attend classes in order to avoid losing the school year. The judge pointed out that the school is a private entity and in this case it is reasonable to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 226. The judge noted that the petitioner failed to prove that the school violated any enforceable legal obligations that could attract judicial intervention through written petitions. The court reviewed the Telangana Education Act, which deals with the role of the government in the provision of educational facilities and the Right to Education Act, which ensures that no child is expelled or rejected until basic education is completed. The court noted that under these provisions, any complaints regarding non-compliance must be first filed. Therefore, the court disposed of the written petition, granting freedom to the petitioner to submit a new representative to the DEO within one week and to describe all relevant facts. The DEO was directed to strictly consider and deal with representatives under the 2009 Right to Education and the Telangana Education Act of 1980. The court concluded that interim remedies shall not be approved without any statutory breach or enforcement obligations and that such matter must be brought up through appropriate administrative channels.
HC acknowledges the request of the Temple Trustee
EV Venugopal of the Telangana High Court acknowledged that the appeal challenged the recent appointment of the board of directors to Sri Yogananda Laxmi Narasimhaswamy Temple of Arvapally in Jajireddydygudem Mandal, Aryapet area. The judge is handling a writ request filed by Indurthy Venkat Reddy and seven other people. The petitioner, who is a member of the donor’s lawsuit through the April 8th issue, appoints a group of trustees without issuing any public notice or application for invitation. They believe that the action is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violates the Telangana Endowments Act. The petitioner claimed that the appointment process bypassed established legal proceedings and denied interested and eligible individuals, including themselves, that it was a fair opportunity to apply. They sought to withdraw the lawsuits being sued and prayed to the court to direct the authorities to issue a new notice through the Telangana Endowments Act to form the trust committee of the temple. The court issued the matter for further ruling.
HC seeks responses to Thunderbolt Relief
The Telangana High Court, two panels of judges composed of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Judge Renuka Yara, ordered notices in a contempt plea, accusing of doing nothing to consider paying external compensation to the husband, who paid the husband, who lost his wife in October 2015 due to thunder in October 2015. The petitioner requests “50 clh” relief in accordance with MS No. 1 issued by the Revenue Agency. The petitioner’s case is that despite the clear instructions of the court, no decision was made within the prescribed time.
HC releases bail to defendant’s wife in Rs 18 fraud case
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the High Court of Telangana granted expected bail to an alleged woman involved more than 1.8 billion people collected by a private company from more than 200 victims. The judge handled a criminal petition filed by Baleboyina Kavitha. According to the prosecution, the complaint was filed by multiple individuals against Prakruthi Entrepreneurs Pte Ltd and its directors, claiming they received large sums from the public, in the pretext of providing attractive investment returns for investment in household products. The petitioner’s lawyer believes that the petitioner was not targeting her wife in the complaint because she was the wife of a colleague. The petitioner also argued that she had no active role in corporate affairs and was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The judge observed that there was no record of the petitioner’s connection to the alleged fraud, and no specific charges or materials were made, so the judge approved the grant of conditional expected bail to the petitioner.
