HC Relief to Hospital, Flags Procedural Gaps

Hyderabad: Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court suspended the operation of an order passed against Renova Century Hospitals in a case of alleged fatal medical negligence. The judge found prima facie that the impugned order was passed without issuing notice, conducting a hearing, or undertaking any proper inquiry. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Mr B. Napthi Kumar Reddy, who questioned the treatment of his mother, alleging negligence and improper administration of drugs by the hospital. It was the case of the petitioner that despite specific representations seeking an investigation, the hospital failed to preserve crucial CCTV footage and allowed it to be automatically overwritten within a month, even though a coordinate bench had directed that such footage be examined.

Justice Renuka Yara observed that the failure to preserve material evidence such as CCTV footage raised serious procedural concerns. Counsel appearing for the respondents sought to justify the circumstances leading to the non-availability of CCTV footage. The judge granted interim suspension, observing that such lapses undermined the integrity of the inquiry process. It further observed that, at this stage, it was concerned only with the legality and procedural correctness of the order under challenge. The judge emphasised that the absence of due process, including lack of notice and opportunity of hearing, weighed in favour of the petitioner. However, the suspension order would not preclude the authorities from conducting a proper inquiry in accordance with law.

ITI on playground under HC lens

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the proposed construction of a government ITI on a junior college playground in Khammam district, raising concerns over alleged procedural violations and impact on students. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Kanakapudi Mallaiah and another. The petitioners were seeking to declare as illegal the action of authorities in issuing a work order and executing an agreement with a private contractor for establishment of a new ITI in Madhira constituency by utilising the playground of a junior (Intermediate) college at Siripuram village.

The petitioners contended that the construction is being undertaken without obtaining permissions, securing consent, or obtaining environmental clearance. It was further argued that the playground is essential for students’ sports and physical development, and once construction begins, the facility would be permanently lost. It was also submitted that the project was being executed solely on the basis of an agreement between the government and the contractor, without following due procedure. On the other hand, the Government Pleader informed the Court that the district collector had already directed handing over of possession of the land and that a government order had been issued for construction of the ITI. The judge directed the respondents to file a detailed counter affidavit, particularly addressing the issues relating to permissions.

PCPNDT Act: HC questions police role

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court questioned the action of police authorities in initiating proceedings under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994. The criminal petition was filed by Piske Narsinga Rao and two others seeking quashing of the charge sheet before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire prosecution is vitiated for non-compliance with the provisions of the PCPNDT Act, which mandates that cognisance of offences be taken only on a complaint filed by the “appropriate authority” or its authorised officer. It was argued that police officials have no jurisdiction to register an FIR or initiate prosecution under the Act, rendering the present chargesheet illegal.

Counsel further pointed to alleged procedural lapses, including absence of proper witnesses and failure to conduct mandatory examination of victims, asserting that the case lacks foundational evidence. It was also contended that the prosecution has not clarified whether any “appropriate authority” was constituted in accordance with the statute. After hearing the submissions of the petitioners, the judge directed the Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions on whether an appropriate authority was duly constituted and whether the prosecution was initiated in compliance with statutory requirements.