Location of Hyderabad fruit market again up for court consideration

Do not evict forest dwellers, HC tells govt

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the state not to take coercive action against a member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe qua an eviction notice. The plea also challenged the provisions of the Telangana Forests Act, 1967. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a writ petition filed by one Chirra Guruvaiah belonging to the Chenchu community contending that the Telangana Forests Act was repugnant to The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and hence unconstitutional. The community, according to the petitioner, is recognised as a ‘Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group’ by the Centre. He also stated that the community has been in both the central and peripheral regions of the Amrabad tiger reserve in Nagarkurnool district since ancient times. He stated that they are dependent on the minor forest produce for their livelihood. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to claim individual and community forest right pattas, gram sabha meetings were convened and a resolution was passed accepting the claims put forward by the forest rights committees concerned. The petitioner was aggrieved by the action of authorities in not verifying his claim and the action of the forest range officer is issuing a notice not following the procedure provided under the relevant law, which encapsulates conducting a survey and process the claims thereof by measuring physical attributes such as house, hut and permanent improvements made to land, including levelling, bunds and check dams. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned eviction notice issued by the respondent authority is in contravention with the provisions of ROFR Act. He also argued that in repugnance to the various rights guaranteed under the Central Act, certain provisions of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 mandate eviction by terming occupants as trespassers. Per contra the state argued that their claim was verified and rejected. The panel directed the state to file the order rejecting the application of the petitioner and not to take coercive action against the petitioner until the next date of hearing.

Fake judgment: HC orders inquiry

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court required the registry to ascertain the factual date of the swearing in of a High Court judge. The panel, comprising Justice T. Vinod Kumar and Justice P. Sree Sudha, was dealing with a civil appeal filed by HMDA and two others. The appellant pointed out that the civil court granted an ad interim injunction to the respondent Mohammad Taher Khan on an alleged verdict of the High Court. HMDA also pointed out that the judgment relied upon was delivered in April 1988 but the judge was appointed to the High Court oply in December the same year. It was argued that as a result the order was a concocted judgement troughing serious implication on the rule of law. The panel, speaking through Justice Vinod Kumar, voiced concerns at the brazen manner in which the High Court orders are being illegally manufactured. He accordingly directed the registry to place the factual details before the court.

Don’t move kids from charity hostel: HC

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the district collector of Medchal-Malkajgiri and other authorities not to take any coercive action, including shifting of children, from Crisis Rescue Foundation's charity hostel until March 11. The direction came in a writ plea filed by the foundation, challenging the applicability of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to its institution. The petitioner contended that the charity hostel it runs does not fall under the definition of a Child Care Institution (CCI) as per the Act. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the children housed in the institution were neither ‘children in need of care and protection’ nor ‘children in conflict with law’. The petitioner alleged that government authorities had misapplied the Act, forcing registration under the CCI framework without specifying the applicable category. The petitioner also pointed out that the authorities threatened to remove children from the institution without legal justification. The government pleader (GP) for the women and child welfare department contended that the petitioner had failed to submit essential records, maintain individual child profiles, and follow proper admission procedures. He also contended that inspections revealed major deficiencies, including unhygienic conditions, lack of medical facilities, insufficient food stocks, and improper maintenance of records. The inspection report was forwarded to the director of child welfare and the district collector for further action. The judge directed the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the institution until March 11 and directed them to file a response specifically addressing the issue of jurisdiction.

Sacking of Grameena Bank staff set aside

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court set aside the dismissal orders of many officers of Telangana Grameena Bank, directing the authorities to reconsider imposing lesser punishment or initiate a fresh inquiry by following due process. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by one K. Chandraiah and others, challenging their dismissal from service over alleged supervisory lapses that led to large-scale misappropriation of funds. The petitioners, who were officers at the bank’s Aziznagar branch, were accused of failing to prevent fraudulent activities by a clerk-cum-cashier, resulting in a loss of `8.45 crore to the bank. A departmental inquiry was initiated, and they were subsequently dismissed. The petitioners contended that the proceedings were unfair, as the inquiry relied on photocopies of bank records without proper authentication and the opportunity to cross-examine the main accused was also denied. Senior counsel Vedula Srinivas, appearing for the petitioners, also pointed out that despite being initially named in an FIR, the petitioners were later dropped from the chargesheet. The judge found that the departmental inquiry suffered from serious procedural lapses, including reliance on unauthenticated documents and the absence of key witnesses. The judge ruled that the dismissal orders could not be sustained and directed the bank to either conduct a fresh inquiry following proper procedure or impose a lesser penalty. Meanwhile, the judge ordered the release of provisional pensions to all the petitioners until a final decision is made.