Hyderabad:Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a parent challenging the alleged denial of access to education for his two minor sons by an international school at Nanakramguda, due to non-payment of school fees. While the court refrained from granting relief, it provided liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority with a detailed representation. The petitioner alleged that the school had denied access to classes and examinations since March 3 for non-payment of fees. The petitioner contended that such actions amounted to mental harassment and violated the Right to Education Act, 2009, the Telangana Education Act, 1982, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He pointed out that the district education officer (DEO) failed to act upon his earlier representation made on July 23, 2024, against the alleged exorbitant fee collection by the school. The petitioner sought a direction to the authorities to take immediate action against the school and permit the children to continue attending classes so as not to lose the academic year. The judge noted that the school was a private entity, and no statutory duty was made to justify invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in this case. The judge observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the school violated any enforceable legal obligation that could attract judicial interference via a writ petition. The court examined the Telangana Education Act, which deals with the role of government in providing educational facilities, and the Right to Education Act, which ensures that no child shall be expelled or held back until the completion of elementary education. The court noted that under these provisions, any grievance regarding non-compliance must be first raised before the competent authority. Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the DEO within one week, narrating all relevant facts. The DEO was directed to consider and dispose of the representation strictly as per the Right to Education Act, 2009, and Telangana Education Act, 1980. The court concluded that in the absence of any statutory violation or enforceable duty, no interim relief could be granted, and the matter must be pursued through the appropriate administrative channel.
HC admits plea on temple trustee row
Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the recent appointment of a board of trustees to the Sri Yogananda Laxmi Narasimhaswamy Temple in Arvapally, Jajireddygudem mandal, Suryapet district. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by Indurthy Venkat Reddy and seven others. It was the case of the petitioners that the commissioner of endowments, through proceedings issued on April 8, appointed a set of trustees without issuing any public notification or inviting applications. They argued that this action was arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of the Telangana Endowments Act. The petitioners claimed that the appointment process bypassed established legal procedures, denying interested and eligible individuals, including themselves, a fair opportunity to apply. They sought the quashing of the impugned proceedings and prayed to the court to direct the authorities to issue a fresh notification by the Telangana Endowments Act for constituting the temple’s trust board. The court posted the matter for further adjudication.
HC seeks response on thunderbolt relief
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara ordered notices in a contempt plea complaining inaction in considering payment of ex gratia compensation to a husband who lost his wife due to a thunderbolt strike in October 2015. The panel earlier directed the state government to decide, within 60 days, payment of ex gratia compensation from the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). The petitioner sought `5 lakh in relief under GO MS No.1 issued by the revenue department. It was the case of the petitioner that despite the clear directive from the court, no decision was taken within the stipulated time.
HC grants bail to accused’s wife in Rs 18-cr fraud case
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused in a financial fraud case involving over `18 crore allegedly collected from more than 200 victims by a private company. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Baleboyina Kavitha. According to the prosecution, the complaint was filed by multiple individuals against Prakruthi Entrepreneur Private Limited and its directors, alleging that they collected large sums from the public on the pretext of providing attractive returns on investments in household product ventures. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated solely on the ground that she is the wife of a co-accused and that there was no specific allegation against her in the complaint. The petitioner also contended that she had no active role in the company’s affairs and was willing to cooperate with the investigation. The judge observed that no specific allegations or material were placed on record linking the petitioner to the alleged fraud, and the judge accordingly granted conditional anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
