Court Allows Tech Colleges to Collect Fee from Students

Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreedevi of the Telangana High Court on Thursday permitted the management of various private engineering colleges to provisionally collect fees from candidates under the SC, ST, BC, EWS and MC categories. The judge is dealing with batch of 10 writ pleas filed by the Professional Accredited Engineering Colleges Association and others. The managements were up in arms against the state government for its failure to comply with its commitment to pay crores of rupees towards arrears of tuition fees.

The government required the institutions to admit students from the specified categories with an undertaking that they would pay their tuition fees. The government then modified the order to prohibit the colleges from collecting fees directly from the students, stating it would pay the institutions. In an earlier round of litigation, the matters went to the Supreme Court where the government agreed to pay the fees due for a then-due period of three years and assured that it would thereafter pay fees regularly.

Senior counsel Avinash Desai, appearing for the institutions, pointed out how non-payment of amounts almost sabotaged the managements from effectively exercising their right to manage education institutions. He contended that the managements must be given a free hand to collect the fees running into multiple crores. He pointed out that earlier orders from the court and contempt proceedings had been met with stoic indifference. Another senior counsel appearing for Keshav Memorial Institute of Technology argued that even reputed institutions were being paralysed. He pointed out that over `50 crores was due to the institution. Tarun Reddy, appearing for multiple colleges, pointed out how compelled expenditures and statutory requirements were ruining the fiscal balance of the institutions. Having undertaken the responsibility and having forced the managements to admit the students, the government could not be permitted to fail in its liability, he said. The dues of various institutions it was contended was running to over Rs.1,000 crore approximately.

JH coop Housing body polls stalled

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court stayed the ensuing elections to the Jubilee Hills Co-operative Housing Society. The judge passed the interim orders in batch of writ pleas filed by M.N. Shastry and others. The petitioners through senior counsel D.V. Sitaram Murthy and A. Venkatesh pointed to multiple irregularities in the voters list. They contended that a faulty voter list would affect the ultimate result and make a mockery of the democratic process. They voiced grievances of the members excluded from the voter list on grounds such as not being traceable, not having participated in general body meetings, etc. It was also argued that the impugned removal was unilateral and thus in violation of principles of natural justice. Another tangential writ petition was filed assailing the inclusion of certain members as being contrary to the directions issued by the High Court in October 2024. The petitioners in the said writ petition claimed that members of Phase IV, Manchiruvala, were added to the voters list, contrary to the directions of the High Court. After hearing the parties, Justice Nanda interdicted the election process as an interim measure.

Plea against 2nd occupancy certificates

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the grant of a second round of occupancy rights certificates (ORCs) under the AP (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in respect of land in Mankhal of Maheswaram mandal, Rangareddy district. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by Ponakala Nagarajakumari, challenging an order issued on March 5 by which private parties were granted ORCs for their land in Survey No. 845. The petitioner contended that the action was illegal and arbitrary, as the subject land was covered by earlier occupancy rights, making the subsequent grant an impermissible instance of "ORC over an ORC." Counsel, appearing for the petitioner referred to a prior interim order of the court observing that successive conferment of ORCs could not be sustained. It was argued that the impugned order violated the statutory scheme of the Inam Abolition Act and infringed on Articles of the Constitution, apart from directing cancellation of existing revenue entries in favour of the petitioner. The judge directed the state and revenue authorities concerned to file their response within one week.