Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ petition challenging the alleged inaction of the Hyderabad district education officer in passing an order for cancellation of recognition granted to OCEAN-The ABM School. Justice T. Vinod Kumar is hearing a writ plea filed by Mohd Dawood, who alleged that the school is functioning in Malakpet without requisite permissions. Dawood alleged that he submitted a representation in May 2024 seeking the cancellation of the recognition and No Objection Certificate (NOC) as the same is running in a residential area. The petitioner pointed out that the institution, which offers classes from pre-primary to Class X, is operating in a residential area without mandatory building permissions and occupancy certificates, violating Building Rules and Regulations. The petitioner further contended that Masjid-e-Taqiuddin is being illegally run within the school premises. The petitioner alleged that the inaction of the respondents amounts to arbitrary and illegal dereliction of statutory duties, violating the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioner also alleged that such inaction is in direct violation of the Telangana Education Act. Notably, it was observed that the school lacks a fire NOC and continues to operate under an interim certificate issued by the government. Additionally, the petitioner sought legal action against ABM Educational and Welfare Society and Sharfia Educational and Welfare Society while demanding that an action-taken report be submitted before the court. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners sought two weeks’ time to verify the status of the required permissions. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter for further adjudication.
HC grants bail in abetment to suicide case.
Justice K. Sujana of Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a software professional accused in an abetment to suicide case. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Shailender Reddy alias Tadishetty Shylender. According to the prosecution, in September 2024, the deceased allegedly committed suicide due to intolerable harassment by the accused. A selfie video and a suicide note were recovered, on the basis of which a case was registered against the petitioner for abetment to suicide under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner argued that he never abetted the deceased to commit suicide and was falsely implicated. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments wherein it is held that mere abusive language or alleged harassment does not constitute abetment unless there is intent to instigate suicide. After perusing the material on record, the judge observed that the translation of the selfie video did not disclose elements of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (now Section 108 of BNSS). The judge also noted that the material part of the investigation was completed, making it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail with certain conditions. Accordingly, the judge allowed the criminal petition.
Disciplinary action against retired govt officer questioned
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of Telangana High Court accepted a writ plea challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired government officer. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by a retired assistant director of fisheries, Nirmal district B. Devender, contesting the issuance of a charge memo after his retirement. According to the petitioner, he retired from service in April 2024, and later approached the High Court by filing a writ plea, seeking direction to the State Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development, and Fisheries Department and other authorities, to process and release his pension and other retirement benefits. In the earlier writ plea, the court passed an interim order in December 2024, directing the respondent authorities to forward his pension papers to the Accountant General within four weeks. The petitioner now contends that as a counterblast to the court’s interim direction, the respondent authorities issued a charge memo in January 2025, initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the charge memo was issued without justification and in violation of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules read with Telangana Civil Services Classification, Control, and Appeal Rules. The petitioner argues that the disciplinary action was illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified. The petitioner is seeking a direction to set aside the charge memo and release his pension and pension benefits forthwith, along with interest on delayed payments. The assistant government pleader appearing for the state requested time to take instructions. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter for further adjudication.
HC dismisses plea on ‘Alphores’ prefix in poll nomination
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the action of the returning officer of the Telangana State Legislative Council in prefixing “Alphores” to a politician’s name for the upcoming biennial elections to the Legislative Council from the Graduates’ and Teachers’ Constituency covering Medak, Nizamabad, Adilabad, and Karimnagar. The panel, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was addressing a petition filed by advocate Sardar Ravinder regarding the elections scheduled for February 27, 2025. The petitioner contended that the returning officer had illegally assigned him serial No. 11 while elevating an ineligible person to serial No. 5, arguing that the serial arrangement of candidates should first prioritise recognised state political parties in alphabetical order, followed by registered political parties and independents. He further stated that his representation to the authorities noted that Vootukuri Narender Reddy had filed his nomination papers without any additional prefixes or suffixes, yet “Alphores” was inexplicably prefixed to his name. However, the panel observed that the petitioner’s representation did not specifically mention any grievance regarding the prefix “Alphores” before the private respondent’s name. Senior counsel Avinash Desai, representing the respondents, argued that the petition was barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. returning officer, and maintained that High Courts lack jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain election-related petitions, except as election petitions. After considering both sides, the panel held that the court could not interfere in the election process and noted that an aggrieved petitioner had the remedy of filing an election petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
