Telangana HC Orders Fresh Trial in Warangal Sai Baba Trust Dispute

 Hyderabad:  Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside the order of the trial court in a decades-old dispute involving the control of a meditation centre allegedly converted into a Sai Baba temple in Warangal, and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. The judge was dealing with an appeal suit filed by M. Sai Meditation Centre, Warangal, and members of a registered Shirdi Sai Baba Society against a judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Warangal. The original suit was instituted by disciples of a yogi who claimed that the properties at Wardhannapet and near the Bhadrakali temple belonged to a public charitable trust established for yoga, meditation and healing practices. They alleged that some members, who later formed a registered society, diverted the purpose of the institution by installing an idol of Shirdi Sai Baba, collecting donations and treating it as a temple. The trial court ruled in their favour, granting relief including a declaration, eviction and control over the premises. Justice Bheemapaka found serious legal infirmities in the approach of the trial court, noting the absence of any trust deed or documentary evidence to prove the existence of a legally constituted trust. The judge observed that the plaintiffs, being disciples, lacked the legal standing to seek declaratory relief on behalf of an alleged trust. The judge held that matters relating to trusts must proceed under the Indian Trusts Act and require leave under the provisions of the CPC, which was not obtained. The judge also noted that the disputed properties were under the control of a duly registered society conducting regular activities and elections, and such administration could not be challenged through a civil suit filed by third parties with no legal authority. The judge remarked that the trial court engaged in extensive discussion without addressing core jurisdictional issues. Allowing the appeal, the judge set aside the decree and remitted the case back to the trial court for reconsideration on specific legal issues, including the maintainability of the suit and the sufficiency of evidence.

HC upholds interim relief to suspended advocate

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to intervene with the interim order passed by a single judge in a writ plea challenging the action of the Bar Council of Telangana in suspending an advocate from practice. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a writ appeal filed by the Bar Council of Telangana. According to the appellant, several complaints were pending against the respondent advocate, including allegations of cheating colleague advocates and filing vakalatnamas without authority. It was submitted that, based on the disciplinary committee’s report, the general body of the Bar Council resolved to suspend the respondent from practice. Counsel for the Bar Council contended that the Council was empowered to act suo motu and that the respondent earlier filed vakalatnamas even when his name appeared in the list of non-practicing advocates. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that no notice was served by either the Bar Council or the disciplinary committee before passing the impugned suspension order and that the committee had become functus officio. After hearing both sides, the panel observed that the interim order passed by the single judge was a detailed and reasoned one showing a prima facie case, and therefore, there was no ground to stay or suspend it. The panel directed the Bar Council to file its response in the pending writ plea and cautioned the parties not to seek adjournments to delay the proceedings and disposed of the writ appeal.

HYDRAA told to clear boards on private land

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA) to forthwith remove the boards erected on private property at the Mahadevapuram Residential Project, Gajularamaram. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the plot owners of Mahadevapuram Layout challenging the action of HYDRAA in entering their property and installing boards claiming the land as a park area. The petitioners contended that the action of HYDRAA was arbitrary, without authority of law and carried out without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. E. Venkata Siddhartha, appearing for the petitioners, argued that no provision under the governing statute empowered HYDRAA to intervene with or claim private land without following due process of law. He relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the ‘Bulldozer case’, emphasising that no government authority could take coercive physical action against private property in violation of the principles of natural justice. Finding prima facie merit in the submissions, the judge directed HYDRAA to remove the boards forthwith and restrained it from undertaking any further action until the writ petition is finally adjudicated.

Weightlifting body dissolution upheld

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by former office-bearers of the Telangana Weightlifting Association, challenging the Indian Weightlifting Federation’s decision to dissolve the state body and appoint an ad-hoc committee. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by D. Sailoo and M. Rama Koteswar Rao, who alleged that the federation ignored their request to appoint an observer for the proposed 2024 elections and unlawfully intervened in the association’s affairs. The judge noted that the petitioners themselves, in January 2024, acknowledged the ad hoc committee and withdrew their own election process, making their present challenge contradictory. It was established that the executive committee had already been dissolved through general council resolutions passed in March 2022 and December 2023. The argument that the National Sports Code did not apply to state associations was rejected, as affiliated units were bound by national regulations. The judge held that the judicial process cannot be used to reclaim administrative power that was already relinquished.