Petitions against ICFAI maintainable, says HC

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court on Thursday ruled that writ petitions against ICFAI were maintainable. The judge was dealing with two writ pleas filed by students against the educational institution of law and management run by Institute of Chartered Financial Analyst of India (ICFAI), challenging the order placing them under suspension as a penalty for alleged offences committed by them.

The judge overruled the preliminary objections that no writ petition was maintainable against the institute. On merits, the judge found that the suspension was done without any inquiry as mandated under rules. He directed that an enquiry committee be constituted forthwith and it should complete its probe within two weeks. In the connected petition where the student was removed from the rolls and had filed an appeal, Justice Lakshman directed ICFAI to immediately constitute an appellate authority and the appeal be disposed of in two weeks.

HC poser to MSME facilitation council

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of Telangana High Court on Thursday urged the MSME facilitation council to file a detailed counter to a writ petition seeking to know if security services did not come under their ambit. Surabhi security services moved the conciliation centre to recover nearly Rs 11 lakh for services rendered to KKR SMR Vinay Fountainhead, a residential colony. The application was not accepted on the grounds that the petitioner was not a manufacturing unit and therefore not governed by the Act. The judge directed the council to file a detailed counter by January 20 and adjourned the matter.

Plea against ‘illegal’ eviction dismissed

Justice K. Lakshman dismissed a batch of writ pleas seeking protection against alleged illegal eviction of persons from land parcels in Vattinagulapally village. The petitioners contended that they were in occupation of small extents of land for over 40 years. The judge dismissed the writ petitions as no proof was filed by the petitioners that they were in possession of the properties. The judge pointed out that the government had placed before the court photographic evidence to show that there was no cultivation and that the land parcels were vacant.

TSRTC gets HC nod for new fast food stall at MGBS

Justice K. Lalitha of Telangana High Court refused to interdict the decision of TSRTC to invite tenders for a fast food stall at MGBS here. Petitioner R. Jagadish, a stall holder, challenged the auction notice that was issued on October 17. He contended that the auction defeated the existence of a similar stall. He pleaded legitimate expectation. T. Srinivas, counsel for TSRTC, pointed out that the contract with the petitioner agreeing to a “non-exclusive” clause in the agreement between the stall holder and the TSRTC and that the plea of reasonable expectations ran contrary to the agreement between the parties. Justice Lalitha dismissed the interlocutory application by pointing to the binding contract between the parties. She recorded a finding that there was no infirmity in the auction of the TSRTC and said no interim order could be granted.

HC raps police for impounding passport

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court on Thursday faulted the city police for overreach while dealing with a challenge against impounding a passport. The judge asked under what authority the police could exercise a power which even ordinarily the High Court would not have.

The court was dealing with a writ petition by V. Ravi questioning the action of the station house officer, Miyapur, in impounding the passport. The petitioner argued that his visa was taken away under coercion, threat, and undue influence.

The judge directed the police to forthwith return the impounded document. The police were allegedly acting against the petitioner in a case involving matrimonial dispute and charges under Section 498A IPC.

HC takes up Yadadri women trafficking case.

Justice D. Nagarjun of Telangana High Court heard a batch of revisions questioning the refusal to discharge the accused in the Yadadri women trafficking case. The cases were filed by various accused persons complaining that they ought to have been discharged and not be subject to criminal trial. When counsel for the batch of cases sought extension of the interim orders, the public prosecutor opposed it and said these sensitive matters required immediate hearing. He pointed out that the cases were in fact posted for final hearing.

Prajwala, a NGO working in the space rescue and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking, pointed out that it should be heard and brought to the notice of the court that minor victims are lodged in their homes. It also pointed out that many accused claimed to be parents of the girls when they are not biological parents.

The judge voiced doubt as to whether the NGO could have an audience since it was neither the accused nor the complainant. Justice Nagarjun said that all the factors that it wanted to bring to the notice of the court could be done through the public prosecutor. The court adjourned the matter to January 10 for further hearing.