Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ petition by a senior civil judge challenging her exclusion from the promotion process to the cadre of District Judge (entry level) for the year 2025. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda are hearing a writ plea filed by A. Sreedevi, presently serving as Senior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy. She questioned the proceedings of the High Court Registrar (Vigilance) in May 2025, contending that her exclusion was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the Constitution. Senior Counsel G. Siva, appearing for the petitioner apprised the panel that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Civil Judge in May 2008 and was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in 2017. However, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her in 2016 based on complaints that she had allegedly granted bail in a biased manner while serving as II Metropolitan Magistrate (Juvenile Court), Ranga Reddy district. The High Court had imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which was subsequently set aside by a division bench of the Telangana High Court in a prior writ petition. The Court had held that the charges pertained only to the discretionary exercise of judicial powers and were vague and not serious in nature. In the present writ petition, the petitioner alleged that despite the setting aside of the punishment, she was excluded from the eligibility list on the grounds that she had not completed five years of service as Senior Civil Judge. Appearing for the respondents, senior counsel Narendra Prasad sought time to obtain instructions. Taking note of the submissions, the panel posted matter on July 22, 2025, for further hearing.
HC orders presence of wife in Habeas Corpus case
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the state to produce a written statement from an alleged detenue in a habeas corpus plea filed by her husband alleging that she was forcibly taken away by her family. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao is hearing a habeas corpus writ plea filed by a private employee from Kolkata, seeking production of his wife, who he alleged was being illegally detained by her brother, Y. Mohan Sai. According to the petitioner, the couple had married without the approval of their families, and on the date of registration of their marriage the detenue was allegedly taken away by her brother against her will from the marriage registration premises. Appearing for the state, the Additional Special Government Pleader submitted, on the basis of written instructions, that the detenue had voluntarily chosen to reside with her parents. However, this contention was opposed by the petitioner’s counsel, who maintained that the detenue was in illegal custody and that her statement must be recorded independently. Taking note of the divergent versions, the panel directed the Additional Special Government Pleader to produce a written statement from the detenue and posted the matter to July 16 for further hearing.
HC tells Nalgonda DEO to act on Chaitanya School’s plan
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed the district educational officer, Nalgonda, to consider and dispose of an application filed by Sri Chaitanya School, Nalgonda, seeking permission to run Classes from I to VIII in English medium. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Nallanda Educational Society, which runs the school and submitted its application in October 2024, along with necessary documents and fees. The petitioner alleged inaction by the district educational officer in processing the application. The Government Pleader submitted that the school initially failed to furnish an approved building plan and structural soundness certificate at the time of application. Although these were submitted later along with fire, sanitary, and municipal NOCs, the regional joint director of school education, Hyderabad, rejected the proposal citing the need for further justification and recommendations from the mandal educational officer and district educational officer. The judge, however, observed that once the application and requisite fee were accepted, the authorities were duty-bound to inform the petitioner of any deficiencies and either process or reject the application with specific reasons. Merely keeping the application pending, the judge held, was impermissible. Accordingly, the writ plea was disposed of with directions to the concerned authority to consider the application and pass a reasoned order.
HC partially quashes fraud charges on IGS director
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court partially quashed the criminal proceedings against the non-executive director of IGS Digital Centre and I Globe Solutions in a case involving allegations of online fraud, impersonation, and cheating. The judge was dealing with a criminal plea filed by Rajani Narwar, accused in an FIR registered at Panjagutta Police Station, seeking to quash the case in its entirety. The judge allowed the petition in part, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions relating to identity theft and cheating by impersonation using computer resources under the Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as various sections of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. The judge held that the complaint did not disclose any material constituting offences under these provisions, particularly in the absence of identity theft or illegal possession of telecom apparatus. It was also noted that the Telegraph and Wireless Acts were repealed through the Indian Telecommunications Act, 2023, as notified on December 24, 2023. However, the judge permitted the investigation to proceed against the petitioner under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to cheating, cheating by personation, and dishonest inducement to deliver property. The case originated from a complaint lodged by a woman who alleged that she was duped by IGS Digital Solutions after paying Rs 1,800 and then Rs 4,040 through UPI for registration and KYC verification to create a service ID. The complainant was further advised to opt for a “Zonal ID” by paying Rs 30,000, which she declined due to growing suspicion. Upon visiting the company’s office in Begumpet, she discovered that the services offered were far fewer than promised and was denied a refund. Opposing the quash petition, the Public Prosecutor argued that there were multiple victims misled by IGS, which allegedly projected itself as a Central government-affiliated platform similar to MeeSeva. The judge observed that such claims and the demand for further payments required deeper investigation, especially when allegations of misrepresentation and inducement were involved.
