Telangana HC Extends Time to Civic Authorities on Osmansagar Pollution Case
HC seeks action against unauthorised developments in Osmansagar and Himayatsagar bio-conservation zones.
Hyderabad: A PIL was filed regarding alleged illegal constructions carried out in the prohibited bio-conservation zone within the 10-km radius of the catchment areas of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, was dealing with a PIL filed by Mandadi Madhava Reddy alleging inaction on the part of the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TGSPCB), the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), and other authorities in curbing illegal constructions carried out by M/s Neo Conventions, Ananda Convention, and other entities in the said eco-sensitive zone.
The petitioners contended that the respondents violated government orders issued in March 1996 and April 2012, which mandate preservation of the catchment areas of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar lakes and restrict polluting or construction activities. Despite the prohibition, large-scale unauthorised development continues unabated. Counsel for the petitioners argued that such inaction violates provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and breaches international environmental obligations under the Stockholm Declaration (1972) and Rio Declaration (1992), which emphasise state responsibility to protect and improve the environment.
The petitioners sought directions for authorities to strictly implement protective measures under government orders, particularly for Himayatsagar and Osmansagar lakes, and to immediately halt and demolish illegal constructions within the prohibited 10-km zone. After hearing submissions, the panel directed the respondents, including the State Pollution Control Board, HMDA, GHMC, and other concerned authorities, to file detailed counter affidavits indicating steps taken to monitor, inspect, and prevent illegal constructions in the bio-conservation zone, and to place relevant compliance reports on record. The matter is posted to December 11.
No bail for murder convict
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudan Rao, dismissed the bail petition filed by a life sentence convict in a murder case registered in Cyberabad. Doppalapudi Lokesh Babu, convicted by the Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, LB Nagar, was found guilty under the IPC for the murder of the victim over a land dispute. The trial court imposed life imprisonment for murder and a seven-year sentence for destruction of evidence.
Challenging the conviction, the accused filed an appeal and simultaneously sought bail pending disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution case rested solely on circumstantial evidence and that the alleged confession of the co-accused could not be used against him. It was further contended that key witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version, and there were serious discrepancies in the evidence.
Opposing the plea, the public prosecutor contended that the offence was gruesome, and granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate given the gravity of the crime. The prosecution maintained that the accused killed the deceased over a land dispute, transported the body in a car, and later set the vehicle ablaze to destroy evidence.
After examining the record, the panel observed that, prima facie, specific overt acts were attributed to the petitioner and that the nature of the offence was serious and grave. Although the accused had been in custody for over five years, the panel held that the case was not fit for bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application for bail was dismissed.
HC for transparent procurement policy for welfare residential institutions
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the State government to revise its uniform procurement policy for welfare residential institutions that provide food and provisions to over a thousand welfare residential schools and hostels across the State. The judge held that transparency, fairness, and livelihood protection of small contractors must form the core of any public procurement system.
The judge heard a writ petition filed by the Telangana Gurukula Contractors Association, representing about 5,000 small suppliers. The association challenged the Government Order dated July 8 and subsequent guidelines that centralised procurement of dietary items through a Project Monitoring Unit (PMU). It was argued that the new system eliminated thousands of small contractors who had supplied individual institutions for decades and replaced competitive tendering with a lottery-based selection process, imposing steep financial barriers.
The State government defended the policy as a welfare reform introduced to ensure uniform quality and timely supply of nutritious food to nearly 10 lakh students. It maintained that centralisation was introduced following reports of irregularities, poor-quality supplies, and inconsistent standards under the previous decentralised system.
After hearing both sides, the judge held that while the government’s objective of standardisation was bona fide and in public interest, several operational aspects of the new system lacked transparency and fairness. The judge noted that designating entire districts and mandals as single procurement units, the absence of declared reservations for government-backed entities such as the Girijan Cooperative Corporation (GCC) and Mahila Samakhyas, and the use of a lottery system for awarding contracts undermined competitive bidding principles. Upholding the State’s power to introduce a uniform procurement framework, the judge nevertheless ordered a comprehensive restructuring of its implementation.
HC seeks state reply on mud-bed removal notices
Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the state to file its response in a plea challenging notices to remove mud beds laid in fish tanks at Perikakondaram Village, Nalgonda. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by Gaddam Deekshitha.
The petitioner contended that the notices issued on August 21 by the assistant executive engineer, Shaligowraram, directing her to remove mud beds, were issued without considering her earlier explanation and violated principles of natural justice. The state argued that the land in question, admeasuring four acres, falls under the Full Tank Level (FTL) of the water body and that the petitioner was only permitted to lay nets and not raise mud beds.
The petitioner argued that it was patta land and could not be under FTL of a water body. Justice Anil Kumar probed how the petitioner’s activity on her patta land could invite such allegations, observing that as per the permission granted by the state, she was allowed to undertake fish cultivation. The judge sought clarification on whether the land fell under FTL or was classified as patta land, remarking, “It cannot be both,” and asked the respondents to substantiate their claim with relevant Government Orders. The petitioner’s counsel noted that the fisheries department had conceded she was operating within the bounds of the permission granted. The judge accordingly granted a week’s time to the respondents to file their response.