HC Upholds Grace Marks For NCC Quota

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin dismissed a writ petition challenging the policy decision of state government to abolish the 1 per cent horizontal reservation for NCC cadets in MBBS/BDS admissions. The panel was dealing with a writ petition filed by Silamkoti Yanjleena and others. The controversy relates to a government order issued on July 4, 2023, which supplanted the earlier regime and substituted the fixed quota with a graded system of grace marks of 3 per cent for NCC ‘B’ Certificate holders, 5 per cent for camp participation, and 7 per cent for Republic Day Camp participants. The petitioners, all NCC cadets, assailed the revised policy, contending that grace marks were an inadequate substitute for a guaranteed quota, which earlier ensured dedicated seats for NCC-trained candidates. The panel observed that policy formulation lay squarely within the executive domain, and the court could not sit over the wisdom or efficacy of such decisions unless they were shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. The panel held that the state had offered rational justification for the shift, noting that the grace-marks model extended incentives to a broader pool of cadets, aligned admissions more closely with meritocratic standards, and preserved the academic benchmarks mandated for NEET-UG. Invoking the doctrine of judicial restraint, the panel ruled that the petitioners possessed no vested right to insist on continuation of the earlier quota system and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation could not be invoked to freeze government policy. The panel rejected comparisons with Andhra Pradesh where a mixed model of reservation plus grace marks is in place, holding that such parallelism does not impose any obligation on Telangana to mirror neighbouring policies. The panel said that the revised scheme is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable or illegal.

HC quizzes Warangal civic body on community hall in residential area

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court faulted GWMC for allegedly encroaching and constructing a community hall at Old Grain Market, Girmajipet, Warangal district. The judge directed the status quo to be maintained over disputed plot. The petitioner Gundeboina Kiran Sagar and another contended that they are the owners of the Plot No. 63 in Layout No. 31/1960 and alleged that municipal authorities were illegally encroaching upon their property admeasuring 555.55 sq. yds. It was argued that without any notice or intimation, municipal authorities were carrying out construction. On the other hand, GWMC contended that the land belonged to the municipality and was used for dumping waste. He argued that the municipal corporation commenced construction of a community hall based on public demand, claiming it to be for the welfare of residents in the locality. The judge quizzed the GWMC as to how a community hall could be constructed in a residential layout, irrespective of who owned the land. The court observed that construction of a non-residential structure in an approved residential layout cannot be justified merely on the ground of public interest.

Right to life extends to the dead: HC

Justice J. Anil Kumar on Thursday observed that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution was extended to the dead. Quoting copiously from recommendations from the National Human Rights Commission and international conventions, he said that the right to dignity after death was recognised as a universal right. Even in war and conflict zones, he said, that the dead were entitled to a dignified burial. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed questioning the action of the revenue and municipal authorities in allotting three acres of land near Bandham Cheruvu of Kazipet mandal of Warangal district as early as in 1990. N Nagender and 25 other residents of Revenue Colony, Hanamkonda, complained that the impugned allotment fell with the full tank level of Bandham Cheruvu. It was contended that the processions of corpses with band and music disturbed the peace of the residents. The smoke from the burial ground would affect their health. While the counter affidavit filed by the irrigation department supported the claim of the petitioners that the land was within the FTL area, the revenue authorities and the civic authorities took an opposite stance. Justice Anil Kumar also metaphysically pointed out that the soul travels after death and respect for the dead through different religions and cultural beliefs was the assurance for the soul. The judge took note of findings of different judgments of the apex court on the need to protect water bodies. He pointed out that the right to decent burial and accessible facilities for the same was the duty cast on the state and other civic authorities. In view of the conflicting stances on whether the allotted burial ground is or outside of the FTL, the court called for a detailed report from the revenue, irrigation and the civic authorities.

HC quashes cases against overcharging for drug

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi quashed criminal proceedings against the manufacturer of doxeebest (doxycycline Hyclate 100 mg), and two other accused for allegedly selling the drug at a price higher than the government-notified ceiling under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Mancare Laboratories Pvt Ltd and another. It was the case of the prosecution that during an inspection conducted in 2015, the drug inspector seized stocks of the formulation and later traced the product to the petitioner-company. The complaint was filed only on March 18, 2023, nearly eight years after the initial inspection and seizure. The petitioners contended that the complaint was fundamentally defective, as it failed to establish that the authorized representative was C.B. Mishra, who was in charge of the company’s affairs at the relevant time, a mandatory requirement under the Essential Commodities Act for fastening vicarious liability. They argued that the statutory scheme provided a mechanism for recovering any overcharged amount with interest, thereby rendering criminal prosecution unnecessary. Counsel for the petitioner argued that unexplained eight-year delay violated their constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Placing reliance on the various rulings of the Supreme Court where inordinate and unexplained delay was held to indicate possible mala fides behind belated criminal action, the judge held that the prosecution’s complete failure to explain the extraordinary delay was fatal to the proceedings, creating a legitimate inference of arbitrariness. It was observed that the DPCO stipulates that manufacturers overcharging scheduled formulations are liable to deposit the excess amount with interest, which the authorities could have invoked instead of pursuing prosecution after an inexplicable lapse of time. The judge also remarked that undue delay in such matters results in expiry of the seized medicines, ultimately defeating both regulatory objectives and public interest.