A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the state to get instructions in a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the amendment to the Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act 2025 and the formation of Kothagudem Municipal Corporation. A panel of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a PIL filed by J. Shivaram Prasad. The petitioner contended that the order vide GO Ms. 103, passed on May 29, constituting the Kothagudem Municipal Corporation with the Kothagudem municipality, Paloncha municipality and Paloncha samsthan villages and seven gram panchayats of Sujatanagar mandal as ultra vires, in violation of the agency laws and Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. The petitioner held that the areas intended to be included in the municipality were not connected to each other geographically and were not a compact block. He contended that three separate areas, which are not connected geographically, were merged into one to form the municipal corporation. The petitioner pointed out that between the Paloncha municipality and the Kothegudem municipality was a reserve forest and Agency mandal of Laxmidevipally. He contended that similar villages of the Agency mandals of Chunchupally were dividing the Kothagudem municipality. The panel posted the matter along with a connected writ plea and deferred the hearing.
HC quashes SBI cashier’s dismissal in gold loan case
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside the dismissal of a State Bank of India (SBI) employee accused of misappropriating gold loans, holding that the punishment was disproportionate and discriminatory when compared to the penalties imposed on senior officers involved in the same allegations. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Gumpu Vishnu Teja, who served as a cashier and joint custodian of gold bags. The petitioner was dismissed without notice and had his gratuity forfeited, while four branch managers, holding greater responsibility, were only given minor penalties of pay reduction despite facing similar charges. The case arose from allegations that the petitioner created fictitious gold loan accounts between 2016 and 2018, leading to a reported misappropriation of over `30 lakh. A departmental enquiry found several charges “proved,” resulting in his dismissal. The judge noted multiple procedural lapses, including the denial of cross-examination of key witnesses and reliance on unsubstantiated documents. Citing violation of natural justice and the absence of conclusive evidence linking the petitioner alone to the alleged fraud, the judge held that the dismissal could not be sustained. The judge remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority with directions to reconsider the punishment and impose a lesser penalty in line with that given to other co-delinquents.
Denial of seat for ex-servicemen quota challenged
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court admitted a contempt case against the registrar of the University of Hyderabad for allegedly denying admission to the son of an ex-serviceman under the defence personnel reservation quota despite seats being available. The judge was dealing with a contempt case filed by ex-serviceman Veeran Babu, party-in-person. The petitioner alleged that his son was unfairly denied admission to the courses he applied for, in violation of the defence ministry’s 1994 priority reservation guidelines. He argued that the denial was arbitrary, particularly since the court had earlier upheld the validity of the Government of India’s 2018 order on priority categorisation in defence reservations. The university contended that no seats were available, claiming that the petitioner did not apply for admission in the courses where seats were offered as per the order of the High Court. The petitioner maintained that his son was never offered admission in the subjects of his choice. The respondents sought time to file their response.
HC summons child welfare project director for contempt
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court ordered the appearance of the child welfare project director, Medak district, in a writ plea challenging alleged interference with the custody of a minor child despite earlier court orders. The petitioners complained that the child welfare authorities visited their residence seeking to take custody of their adopted son in violation of directions issued by the High Court in July 2025 in a previous writ plea. The petitioners contended that the fresh attempt was made on the basis of a complaint lodged by a private respondent, who was incidentally a party in the earlier round of litigation. On the previous occasion, the government pleader submitted that officials had conducted a preliminary inquiry pursuant to the complaint and informed the petitioners to appear before the child welfare committee along with the child. It was argued that in the earlier proceedings, the petitioners suppressed facts while securing relief. The court observed that the child welfare project director had previously stated on record that no attempt was made to force the petitioners to relinquish custody, and that the proper course of action, if aggrieved, would have been to seek review of the earlier order. Holding that the interference was prima facie unsustainable, the judge earlier granted an interim direction restraining the child welfare authorities from calling upon the petitioners to hand over custody of the child. Justice Madhavi Devi ordered the appearance of the respondent authority and posted the matter to September 8.
