HC Stays SHRC’s Order On Return Of Certificates

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Moinuddin, stayed an order of the Telangana Human Rights Commission (TGHRC) directing the return of student certificates from Sultan-ul-Uloom College of Pharmacy. The panel was dealing with a plea filed by the management of Sultan-ul-Uloom Educational Society and Sultan-ul-Uloom of Pharmacy, challenging the directive issued on August 21, primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. Tarun Reddy, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the commission directed the college to release the certificates of students and asked the Hyderabad district collector to pass appropriate action in tune with the recommendation. It was contended that the commission also summoned the chairman and principal of the college to appear before it on August 28. The petitioners argued that the order was passed on the date of the complaint, without notice or opportunity, contrary to principles of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioners argued that return of certificates did not fall within the ambit of human rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the order passed was beyond the scope and jurisdiction. The panel noted that though notices were ordered to the society chairman and principal to appear before the commission, a recommendation was made beforehand, rendering the order premature. The panel refrained from commenting on the larger question of jurisdiction at this stage and granted one week to the petitioners to file objections before the commission. The panel in the interregnum directed that the order of the commission and the direction to the collector be kept in abeyance until objections are considered and the proceedings concluded.

 Preventive detention in theft case challenged

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a habeas corpus writ plea challenging a preventive detention order passed in November 2024 in connection with alleged acts of robbery. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice G. Praveen Kumar was dealing with a plea filed by Aziz Hassan Kotadia, father of the detenue Nazim Aziz Kotadia, seeking the release of his son lodged at the Cherlapalli Central Prison based on the detention order. The petitioner submitted that the detention order referred to two offences, while the state sought to rely on four, which could not be done at this stage. Counsel for the petitioner argued that an identification parade was conducted only in respect of the first offence and not the second, and that witnesses failed to identify the detenue. The petitioner contended that the alleged acts of robbery at best amounted to law and order issues but did not disturb public order as required under preventive detention law. It was also pointed out that the detenue was in custody when proceedings were initiated, and instead of pursuing cancellation of bail, the authorities resorted to preventive detention. The panel directed the state to respond to the issues of the identification parade and the cancellation of the bail application and posted the matter to September 1.

Negligence alleged against pvt. hospital in HC

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea alleging gross medical negligence at Fernandez Stork Home, Banjara Hills, which led to the death of a 30-day-old infant during surgery. The judge was hearing a writ petition, filed by Dr Mohammed Imran and two others, contending that while operating on the baby for an intestinal condition, the doctors negligently caused fatal complications by damaging the kidney of child. The petitioner sought a direction to the police commissioner to register an FIR against Dr Bhuvaneswara Rao, Dr Tejo Pratap and Dr Suseela, based on a complaint lodged on February 1. Petitioner sought a direction from the state health authorities to constitute an independent medical board to probe the case and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned medical professionals. Additionally, the petitioners sought reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to `8 lakh. The judge directed the respondents to file their counter.