Telangana HC Defers Hearing in Prakruthi Gowshala Case

Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a writ plea filed by Prakruthi Gowshala Trust alleging that state municipal officials and other authorities forcibly removed 20 cows from its premises without notice or due process. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the Trust, which stated that its Goshala, located beside Sai Baba Temple Lane and adjacent to the Musi River, was used solely for feeding rescued cattle and that no commercial activity is being undertaken. The petitioner complained that on October 30, officials removed 20 cows, handed them over to the Imblibun Goshala, and directed the Trust to vacate the premises. Seeking interim relief, the petitioner requested that the authorities be directed to return the cows until alternate arrangements could be made. The respondents opposed the plea, contending that the Goshala is in a flood-prone area along the Musi River, and returning the cattle could endanger their safety. After hearing both sides, Justice Vijaysen Reddy deferred the matter for further hearing to November 7.

HC acts on SC student plea

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the convener of TGEAPCET-2025 to consider the representation of a woman candidate from the Scheduled Caste category for reallotment of a vacant reserved seat in the Information Technology stream at ISL Engineering College, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. The direction came while hearing a writ petition filed by Adelli Karuna Sri. The petitioner, who appeared for TGEAPCET-2025, filed the plea to prevent the loss of one academic year. She stated that she was allotted a seat at ISL Engineering College during the second phase of counselling but could not submit her documents upon receiving oral instructions from the college staff. In the third phase of counselling, she was not allotted any seat, and her earlier admission was cancelled. The college principal later wrote to the EAPCET convener, expressing no objection to her reallotment and urging that her case be considered. However, no action was taken. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the authorities failed to act on the college’s repeated representations. Taking note of the submissions, Justice Nanda directed the EAPCET convener to examine the petitioner’s request for reallotment of the vacant seat under the SC women’s quota in the Information Technology stream at ISL Engineering College and issue reasoned orders within one week.

HC takes up clinic seizure plea

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ petition filed by an electro-homoeopathy doctor challenging the seizure of his clinic by the District Medical and Health Officer (DMHO). The petition was filed by Dr. Akhil Ranjan Biswas, who challenged the DMHO’s action as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India. He contended that the seizure violated a directive from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which clarified that electro-homoeopathy is not prohibited and can be practised by trained professionals under regulatory conditions. He argued that the DMHO’s action was contrary to the directive. He sought directions to reopen his sealed clinic and restrain authorities from interfering with his medical practice. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.

MLA poaching SIT notices scrapped

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court quashed notices issued under Section 41-A of the CrPC, observing that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had ceased to exist after the Government Order constituting it was struck down. The judge was hearing criminal petitions filed by Thushar Vellappally and others seeking to quash proceedings related to the SIT’s probe into the alleged poaching of BRS MLAs. The petitioners argued that the entire process, including the issuance of Section 41-A notices, was void as the SIT no longer had legal standing. It was also noted that the trial court had earlier rejected a memo seeking to include additional persons as accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, citing lack of police jurisdiction. The prosecution’s revision petition was later dismissed after the SIT was struck down. The petitioners further contended that the investigation’s very foundation was nullified. They pointed out that the Single Judge’s order declaring the SIT unconstitutional remains in force, as no appeal was entertained by the Division Bench and no stay was granted by the Supreme Court. The judge also quashed a similar case involving BJP Secretary B.L. Santhosh. Holding that the impugned notices stemmed from actions of a body that no longer had legal validity, Justice Anil Kumar quashed the notices and disposed of the petitions.