Gated Society That Had Only Some Residents Spiked

Hyderabad:Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the registration of Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited formed by a group of villa owners in a gated community at Gopanpally, holding that the statutory procedure under the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act was not properly followed. The petitioners, B. Srinivas Rao and another, questioned the action of the district cooperative officer in registering the society without issuing notice to all owners and without proper verification. They contended that the project comprised 105 villas and 12 LIG/EWS units, and that the society was registered at the instance of a few residents to the exclusion of the majority. The state defended the registration, stating that proposals were submitted through the E-Sahakara portal, a field verification was conducted on October 15, 2022, and the society was registered on October 21, 2022. The respondent society contended that it represented 57 villas and was maintaining common amenities at its own cost. The judge framed the core issue as whether the society was formed in accordance with the provisions of the TMACS Act. On examining the record, the judge found inconsistencies in the field inspection report and held that proper enquiry and verification were not carried out before issuance of the registration certificate. Relying on precedent, the judge reiterated that the registrar must verify compliance with statutory requirements and consider objections before granting registration. Holding that the registration suffered from procedural infirmities, the judge set aside the registration of the society. The promoters were directed to draft bylaws in accordance with the Act and submit a fresh application, which the competent authority shall consider in accordance with law. The judge directed that the funds collected by the society be kept in a suspense account and returned to the contributors after deducting expenses.

HC to hear plea on medical stipends

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning allegations of unlawful withdrawals and deductions of stipends payable to medical students in private medical colleges. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, treated as a PIL, a letter seeking an immediate inquiry into the financial irregularities and a direction to compel institutions to refund wrongfully deducted amounts to affected students. The letter contended that despite submission of multiple representations and complaints to the competent regulatory and governmental authorities highlighting the issue of stipend irregularities, no effective action had been initiated, thereby resulting in continued financial hardship to students. The PIL sought judicial intervention in relation to alleged financial irregularities concerning stipend payments, that several private medical colleges were resorting to unauthorised deductions and withdrawals from stipends that are mandatorily payable to medical students undergoing internship and postgraduate training specifically highlighting compliance with statutory norms, and student safeguards. The letter sought framing of uniform guidelines to ensure transparency and accountability in future disbursements, alongside the initiation of punitive action against erring institutions and administrators to protect the financial rights of medical students. After hearing the arguments, the panel directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) and respondent authorities to file their responses and posted the matter for further hearing.

Cheating case accused gets bail

The Telangana High Court granted bail to a businessman accused of luring a woman into investing ₹75 lakh in a real estate venture under the alleged false promise of marriage. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Kambhammettu Rana Pratap Reddy. According to the prosecution, the de-facto complainant alleged that the accused developed a relationship with her in 2023, promised to marry her, and under that pretext allegedly exploited her physically and induced her to invest ₹75 lakh in a real estate venture. It was alleged that he later refused to marry her and failed to return the money. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations were false and argued that the complainant herself was not interested in marriage. It was submitted that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since January 7 and that a substantial part of the investigation had been completed. The additional public prosecutor opposed the bail plea, maintaining that the accused received the amount and deceived the complainant under the guise of marriage. The state submitted that the investigation was still ongoing. After considering the rival submissions and examining the material on record, the judge observed that the petitioner had been in custody since January 7 and that key witnesses had already been examined. Taking into account the nature of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the duration of incarceration, the judge found it appropriate to grant bail.