Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court accepted a writ plea challenging the legality of Regulation 9(7) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matters) Regulations, 2024, and consequential demands raised under it. A panel comprising acting Chief Justice P. Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing a writ plea filed by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and the Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited. The petitioners contended that Regulation 9(7), which pertained to the procedure for recovery of charges in case of deficit in the deviation and ancillary service (DAS) pool account, was arbitrary, ultra vires, and beyond the scope of powers vested in the respondent authorities. The petitioners argued that the respondents had no authority to recover deficits in the DAS pool account from them, particularly where such deficits were attributable to other designated inter-state transmission system customers (DICs). Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that similar regulations had been challenged before the Kerala and Madras High Courts, and both courts had granted interim protection. The panel directed the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India to get instructions and posted the matter to Friday.
HC stays advocate’s removal from BCI rolls
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court stayed disciplinary proceedings initiated against an advocate and the consequential notification removing his name from the rolls of the Bar Council of Telangana, after observing that the action appeared to be premeditated. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Sunkara Naresh, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Telangana, challenging proceedings dated June 6 and the notification issued on July 1 on the ground that they were undertaken in violation of the Advocates Act, Bar Council of India Rules and constitutional protections. The petitioner contended that he voluntarily suspended practice by submitting a letter on June 2, which was duly acknowledged by the authorities on June 3. Without affording any opportunity of hearing or awaiting his reply to the showcause notice, the Bar Council reflected his status as “removed” on its website by June 10, much before any final determination. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the proceedings were arbitrary, disproportionate, and vitiated by mala fides. Taking note of the contentions of the petitioner, that the removal was reflected even before he could respond, the judge observed that, prima facie, the action appeared premeditated. The judge posted the matter after three weeks for further hearing.
Pub owners get bail in drugs case
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court granted bail to the proprietors of Broadway Pub and Quak Pub, Hyderabad, in a case registered by the Telangana Anti-Narcotics Bureau. The judge was hearing a quash petition filed by the accused in Crime No. 2 of 2025, contending that they were implicated solely based on the confessional statement of a co-accused. The petitioners, represented by advocate E. Venkata Siddhartha, contended that there was no independent or legally admissible evidence to justify their arrest or custodial interrogation. It was argued that the allegations were unsupported by corroborative material and the reliance on a co-accused’s statement was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The judge, upon examining the record, observed that the offences alleged were punishable up to seven years and found the case fit for relief under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which provides protection against unnecessary arrest and detention in such cases. The order of the judge also drew support from the principles laid down in ‘Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar’ by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the judge enlarged the petitioners on bail.
No tender, no transparency: HC
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside two build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts awarded for central lighting and advertisement infrastructure works on Radial Road No. 30 extension, Serilingampally, citing a violation of the principles of transparency and fair procedure. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Team Ads, holding that government contracts awarded through private negotiation without a public tender process were impermissible in law and violative of the Constitution. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, challenged the awarding of the lighting contract first to the unofficial respondent via MoUs of 2024 without any public notification or tender. The judge noted that while the first firm received the contract for two roads, the second contract for Radial Road No. 30 was awarded to a different entity on the ground of non-performance, without prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The judge emphasised that the state could not distribute largesse at its whim and must ensure transparency and equality in awarding public contracts. The judge observed that such contracts must go through a public auction or open tender, with wide publicity in newspapers. Terming the actions of the respondent authorities as arbitrary and illegal, the judge quashed both MoUs and directed the government to initiate a fresh tender process for the project on Radial Road No. 30 extension.
