Telangana HC Rejects Delayed Appeal by RTC

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court refused to entertain an appeal filed belatedly by Telangana Road Transport Corporation (TGRTC) seeking to set aside an order of a single judge which upheld an award passed by the Labour Court (LC) in favour of a conductor. A panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P. Sam Koshy was dealing with a writ appeal filed by the RTC Ibrahimpatnam depot manager. Earlier, a writ petition was preferred by the appellant challenging an order of the Labour Court. R. Shivanna, a conductor who had been employed with the corporation since 1997. In July 2016, it was alleged that he collected excess fare from a passenger while on duty. Subsequently, a detailed enquiry was conducted, the charges against him were proved and he was removed from service. He challenged the same before the Labour Court, which allowed his claim and directed the TGRTC to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, attendant benefits, with full back wages. The award of the Labour Court was upheld by the single judge, observing that the findings of the Labour Court are not controverted by the corporation with any evidence to the contrary. The panel speaking through the Chief Justice asserted that there was no cogent reason for filing an appeal with the delay of 277 days and the panel is not persuaded on the merits, in view of the consistent finding of facts by a single judge and the labour court.

2. HC stays Nizamapet park lease

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court suspended a notice issued by the Nizamapet Municipal Corporation seeking to lease out park and gym facilities situated within Kolan Narayana Reddy Colony Welfare Association premises. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the association, challenging the action of the municipal authorities, particularly the issuance of the impugned notice, as arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was alleged that the notice, inviting expressions of interest to lease the park and gym, was issued without authority and in collusion with unofficial respondents, disrupting the peaceful maintenance of the area carried out by the association. The petitioner contended that the park and a commercial complex situated within the HUDA layout were developed by the association, solely for the benefit of its residents. The petitioner contended that the respondent officials held no authority to interfere in its management or to initiate a tender process for leasing any part of it. In response, the municipal authorities argued that the commercial complex was constructed using municipal funds and that the association collected lease amounts from commercial occupants. They claimed that the lease process was undertaken to ensure accountability and public interest. The petitioner refuted these claims, maintaining that the infrastructure was established by the society without government funding and was managed transparently for the welfare of the residents. The judge ordered the interim suspension of the operation of the impugned notice until further orders.

3. HC stays FIR against retired BHEL staff

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court stayed all further proceedings, including investigation and arrest, in the FIR registered by BHEL against several office bearers and members of the Sri Sneha BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Patella Narasimha Reddy and eight others. A FIR was registered against the petitioners based on a complaint filed by the estate officer of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL). It is alleged that the accused unlawfully trespassed into BHEL land situated behind its factory premises, undertook cleaning operations, and uprooted trees in violation of the Walta Act. Challenging the registration of the FIR, the petitioners, who are retired BHEL employees, contended that the land in question was lawfully purchased from the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC) under a registered sale deed for housing development for BHEL employees. The petitioners contended that the society had already obtained an ad-interim injunction from the civil court, restraining BHEL from interfering with their possession of the land. Additionally, the petitioners pointed out that the High Court earlier directed the survey department to demarcate the land, pursuant to which a government-conducted survey confirmed the boundaries of the society’s land. Damodar Mundra, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, apart from the petitioners, other accused had been made accused in the FIR. One of the accused had been outside the country for over four months, another had passed away in January 2024, and one of the individuals named in the FIR was merely a witness to the government survey and not involved in any dispute with BHEL. Considering the civil nature of the dispute, pending litigation, and factual matrix, the judge observed that continuation of criminal proceedings appeared to be an abuse of process. Accordingly, the judge stayed all further proceedings in the FIR.

4. Spousal consent stalls sibling transplant

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court refused interim relief in a writ plea seeking urgent permission for a liver transplant between siblings, after the hospital allegedly insisted on spousal consent to proceed with the surgery. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by two brothers, M. Peda Brahmaiah and M. China Brahmaiah, the donor and the recipient, challenging the oral insistence of spousal consent by Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Ministers Road, Secunderabad, as a precondition for proceeding with the liver transplant. The petitioners contended that such a requirement was illegal, arbitrary and beyond the jurisdiction of the hospital, especially when both parties are genetically related and medically cleared for the transplant. The petitioners sought a declaration that the hospital’s insistence on spousal consent was unlawful and a direction to proceed with the transplant surgery based solely on the medical reports and the legal relationship between the donor and the recipient. Counsel for the petitioners also brought to the attention of the judge the urgency of the medical condition and the need for immediate surgery. The judge, noting the absence of the spouse’s viewpoint, declined to pass an immediate order and directed the petitioners to implead the donor’s wife as a necessary party. The judge posted the matter to Monday.