Telangana HC Faults OU For Not Complying With its Order

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court junked an appeal filed by Osmania University challenging an order directing issuance of a hall ticket to a final year law student.

The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin reprimanded the University for not complying with the directions of the single judge pending the appeal. Earlier Dr. Fouzia Nikhath, a student of the LLB (Three Year Degree Course), challenged the action of the University in not issuing a hall ticket despite having accepted the requisite examination fee. It is the case of the petitioner that she had been regularly attending V Semester classes during the academic year 2024–2025, even appeared for internal examinations and viva voce.

However, her name was excluded from the V Semester list on account of backlogs in the II and III Semesters. Single judge observed that denying the petitioner permission to appear for the V Semester examinations, particularly after collecting the examination fee and at the threshold of the examinations, amounted to curtailment of her rights as a student. During the appeal, writ petitioner would contend that despite service of the interim order on the University, the authorities neither issued the hall ticket nor permitted the candidate to enter the examination hall. Speaking for the panel, Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh strongly deprecated the conduct of the University and observed that non-implementation of a subsisting court order defeats the very purpose of judicial intervention.

The panel remarked that filing an appeal against an interim order while simultaneously refusing to comply with it was impermissible and undermined the authority of the Court. While disposing of the writ appeal, the panel declined to interfere with the interim order, holding that all issues relating to the eligibility of petitioner to appear for further examinations despite backlogs could be adjudicated in the pending writ petition. The panel permitted the parties to take appropriate steps for expeditious disposal of the main writ petition.

Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court junked a plea seeking to restrain disclosure of banking information to investigating authorities in connection with a cyber-crime case. M/s Jubilee Hills Mercantile Cooperative Urban Bank Limited sought a direction against Yes Bank Limited not to disclose any information pertaining to its bank accounts to the Cyber Crime Division, CID Headquarters.

It also challenged a notice issued by the Investigating Officer on January 14 in a funds siphoning off case registered with the Davanagere Cyber, Economic and Narcotic Offences (CEN) Police Station. The notice required production of account opening and KYC details, transaction and banking records, and organisational records within seven days, and also directed preservation of physical and electronic evidence. It was contended by the petitioner that there was no statutory mandate empowering the second respondent to issue such directions and that disclosure of KYC details would affect the credibility and reputation of the petitioner-bank. It was further contended that the petitioner did not intend to obstruct the investigation and would cooperate.

On a query from the Court as to the objection in furnishing information in a criminal investigation, no specific prejudice or statutory bar was pointed out. The judge recorded that the petitioner failed to explain the damage likely to be suffered either by preserving the data or by furnishing it to the Investigating Officer in a case involving alleged siphoning of about Rs. 52 lakhs. Observing that no ground was made out to grant the relief sought, the judge dismissed the writ petition and closed all pending miscellaneous applications.

The ongoing battle relating to the management of the well-known Mahbub College, Secunderabad, echoed yet again in the State High Court. A two-judge panel issued a set of directions, pending resolution of disputes under the Arbitration Act.

The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar refused to suspend a termination notice issued by Mahbub College against Venkat Narayana Educational Society (VNES), issued by the management of Mahbub College. It is pointed out that there was an agreement under which the parties were to jointly manage the institutions, and followqing the disputes relating to financial transactions, administration and alleged contractual breaches, Mahbub College issued a termination notice on 3rd October 2024, which led to multiple proceedings, including petitions invoking provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Trial Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Mahbub College from entering and interfering with the functioning and administration of VNES, while refusing to suspend the termination notice and refusing to restrain Mahbub College from approaching statutory authorities. The panel upheld this approach, holding that the arbitration clause contained in the agreement continues to subsist and was neither waived nor abandoned merely because earlier civil proceedings had been instituted. The panel further held that suspension of the termination notice at the interlocutory stage was not warranted, since the validity and effect of the termination notice lies at the heart of the arbitral dispute and requires detailed evidence and contractual interpretation.

It also upheld the interim injunction as a protective measure to preserve the status quo and ensure continuity in the functioning of educational institutions, observing that disputes between managements should not disrupt students’ education. The panel also held that a restraint against Mahbub College from addressing letters or approaching statutory and regulatory authorities such as AICTE, JNTUH and the State Government would be legally impermissible, particularly since statutory approvals and affiliations stand in Mahbub College’s name, and any such restraint could jeopardize compliances and adversely affect students and staff. Accordingly, the panel relegated the parties to arbitration and appointed Justice L. Nageswara Rao, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as the sole arbitrator.