Notices To Med Colleges On PG Admissions

GHMC directed to demolish building at Sultan Bazaar

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the GHMC to take immediate steps to demolish an unauthorised construction at Sultan Bazaar, Hyderabad, and report compliance. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Konda Raghunandan and Konda Anjaneyulu, complaining of inaction by the GHMC despite repeated complaints regarding the illegal construction. It was contended that the unofficial respondents were raising construction far beyond the sanctioned plan, without leaving mandatory setbacks, causing obstruction of light, air, and ventilation. The judge noted that permissions granted in February 2025 permitted only stilt parking with two upper floors, but the construction was allegedly raised up to five floors and above. It was recorded that showcause notices were issued under the GHMC Act and a speaking order dated September 1, 2025, directed demolition of the deviated portions within 15 days, failing which departmental demolition was to follow. Observing that no action was taken even after issuance of the speaking order, the judge held that further notice was not required and directed the GHMC deputy commissioner to implement the speaking order forthwith. The private respondents were restrained from proceeding with any further construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

HC disposes of School plea against vendors

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court ruled that the school run by the International Educational Academy at Shaikpet cannot obstruct licensed street vendors from carrying on business on public land and clarified that vendors cannot operate within the private property of school. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar disposed of a writ appeal filed by the school challenging the directions issued by a single judge in a dispute qua street vendors operating near its compound wall. The case arose after the vendors alleged that the school erected iron rods and attempted to fix tin sheets on the footpath to prevent vending activity. Acting on a complaint made by the school, the GHMC had earlier taken steps against the vendors. The appellant school contended that the presence of street vendors outside the school premises caused serious inconvenience and safety concerns to students and parents, particularly with regard to traffic congestion and parking during school hours. During the hearing of the appeal, the GHMC submitted an inspection report stating that the iron rods were erected outside the school's compound wall and fell within the road margin as per the master plan. The report also justified the action taken by the GHMC in removing the encroachment. Counsel for the vendors contended that they were lawfully vending on the footpath/public area adjacent to the international school and were not operating within the private property of school. Refusing to interdict with the order of single judge, the panel ruled that while the school was entitled to safeguard the interests of students and parents, including concerns relating to parking and access, it cannot restrict vending activities on land that does not belong to it. The panel reiterated the directions restraining the vendors from dumping garbage near the school premises and permitted the GHMC to take appropriate action either to remove the iron rods or to ensure that they strictly adhere to the school boundaries.

Doctor told to reply to med panel notice

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the Telangana State Medical Council to grant a personal hearing to the former medical director of Wellness NXP Private Limited, before proceeding with ethics action over alleged professional misconduct. The judge disposed of a writ petition filed by Dr R. Prashanth Rao, challenging a notice issued by the ethics panel of the Telangana Medical Council directing him to appear in connection with alleged violations of medical ethics. The dispute arose after the council issued notices alleging that the hospital sponsored and participated in felicitation programmes involving unqualified individuals, including registered medical practitioners and private medical practitioners, allegedly encouraging quackery. According to the petitioner, he served as the medical director of Wellness NXP Private Limited, a duly registered clinical establishment forming part of a chain of six Wellness Hospitals operating in Telangana. He contended that while he was responsible for overseeing clinical functions during his tenure, he resigned from the post on July 1, 2024, and was no longer associated with the hospital at the time the impugned notice dated January 29, 2025, was issued. The hospital submitted a detailed explanation stating that the felicitation programme was conducted merely as a gesture of goodwill towards members of the para-medical and auxiliary healthcare community and did not amount to promotion of unqualified medical practice. Subsequently, notices were issued directly to Dr Rao, calling upon him to appear before the ethics committee and to submit hospital records relating to staffing, qualifications, and administrative policies. Challenging the notice, Dr Rao contended that the council lacked jurisdiction to inspect and regulate clinical establishments, contending that such powers vested with authorities under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. He argued that the allegations, even if assumed to be true, pertained to institutional practices of the hospital and could not be attributed to him in his individual capacity, particularly as he had resigned prior to the issuance of the notice.

Opposing the petition, the council argued that the writ petition was premature and that it was empowered under the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act and the Rules, to conduct enquiries into allegations of professional misconduct. The council contended that Dr Rao, having functioned as medical director during the relevant period, could not avoid scrutiny for acts or omissions during his tenure merely on the ground of subsequent resignation.

The judge declined to examine the merits of the allegations at this stage. The judge observed that the petitioner could raise all objections, including questions relating to jurisdiction and individual responsibility, by submitting a detailed explanation to the council and accordingly disposed of the matter.