HYDERABAD: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea on the question of whether or not a notice for the acquisition of private land can be communicated through a social media platform. The action of Nizamabad revenue divisional officer-cum-land acquisition officer in initiating land acquisition proceedings by serving a notice required to be issued under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, through WhatsApp is the subject matter of the petition. Vakil Vanitha Devi, the petitioner, pointed out that the respondent sent a notice dated December 24, 2024, via WhatsApp on January 9, 2025, at 8.30 pm. The petitioner argued that the notice unilaterally recorded a finding that the petitioner had no objections, despite not following the due process. The petitioner alleged that the action was contrary to the procedure laid down for acquisition of private land by the government. The petitioner contended that the acquisition was not for a public purpose and was executed without following the necessary procedural safeguards and sought an immediate direction to set aside the impugned notice in the interest of justice. The plea also sought judicial intervention to ensure compliance with due process under the relevant law. The judge questioned the government pleader as to the legality of a notice sent on WhatsApp, especially in light of a recent Supreme Court judgment holding that police cannot serve notices to accused persons through WhatsApp or other electronic modes under the Criminal Procedure Code or Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The government pleader sought time to file a counter. The judge scheduled the case for further adjudication and passed an order for maintaining status quo until further orders.
Writ challenges denial of seat by Bhaskara medical college
The Telangana High Court will hear a writ plea challenging the inaction of Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences in considering a student’s representation for allotment of a MS (general surgery) seat in Bhaskar Medical College. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a writ plea filed by Panneru Sri Sai Narayan Sidhartha, who contended that he was being denied the seat despite it being provisionally allotted to him under the management quota MQ2 (NRI category). The petitioner contended that he had paid the university fees and was unable to join due to non-arrangement of a bank guarantee. The petitioner contended that the actions of the respondents were arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to allot seat in the college, which was already provisionally allotted, or a seat in the next phase of counselling or the present intake, whichever was the earliest. Counsel for the college stated that the petitioner had failed to execute the bank guarantee, due to which he was not allotted the seat. The counsel argued that bank guarantee was a pre-requisite and failure to furnish the same would lead to non-allotment of seat. The panel posted the matter for further hearing.
Writ against Bhadrachalam temple EO
The Telangana High Court entertained a plea challenging cancellation of license rights for the maintenance of Sri Rama nilayam choultry alleging mala fide intentions against the executive officer of Shree Seetharamachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam at Bhadrachalam. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka was dealing with a plea filed by one Golla Manmadha Rao, who contended that he was granted licence rights from January 16, 2023, to January 15, 2026. Without any reasonable cause, it was cancelled last October by the EO. The petitioner argued that the reason for the cancellation traversed beyond the show cause notice and also the earlier orders passed by the High Court. He alleged that the cancellation was executed with mala fide intentions. It was the case of the petitioner that his explanation, submitted in October 2024, was not taken into consideration before the issuance of the cancellation order. The petitioner sought a direction to restore his possession until the completion of the lease period. The petitioner sought departmental action against the EO for alleged misuse of power and fraudulent actions. The judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response by the next date of the hearing.
Constable gets anticipatory bail in suicide case
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a constable accused in an abetment to suicide case. The judge was dealing with an anticipatory bail petition filed by Bathula Chandra Shekar, a constable from Hanamkonda. According to the prosecution, the case originated from a complaint filed by the wife of the deceased, alleging that the petitioner, along with other accused, lent money to her husband. When her husband failed to repay, they allegedly threatened him, which drove him to take the extreme step. Based on the complaint, the petitioner and other accused were charged under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner argued that his implication was based on mere assumptions and that he had no role in the alleged offence. He contended that the dying declaration of the deceased indicated that he had died by suicide due to mounting debts and had not mentioned the petitioner’s name. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, stating that no prima facie case of abetment was made out against him. The additional public prosecutor opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations. Justice Sujana observed that the complaint did not contain specific allegations against the petitioner beyond the claim that he lent money and sought repayment. Considering these factors, the judge deemed it fit to grant pre-arrest bail subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer every Monday until a chargesheet into the case was filed.
