Telangana HC Rejects IPS Officer's Contention On Promotion Process

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court rejected the challenge to promotion process to the Indian Police Service (IPS) from the State Police Service. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a writ petition filed by L.S. Chowhan questioning the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which had declined to interfere with the IPS selection process for the panel years 2009-A and 2010. The petitioner, a State Police officer who served as Deputy Superintendent of Police and later as Superintendent of Police, contended that the withholding of his integrity certificate by the State authorities adversely affected his consideration for inclusion in the IPS select list. Accordingly he said that the selection process arbitrary. He also alleged procedural irregularities and possible bias in the functioning of the Selection Committee. The panel observed that the Selection Committee independently evaluates eligible officers on the basis of their service records and Annual Confidential Reports through a comparative assessment of merit. The panel noted that the petitioner had been graded “Good” whereas several officers in the zone of consideration were graded “Very Good”, and therefore his non-inclusion in the select list was a consequence of the statutory limitation on the number of vacancies and the comparative grading assigned by the Committee. Holding that the non-issuance of the integrity certificate did not vitiate the independent assessment undertaken by the Selection Committee and finding no material to substantiate the allegation of bias, the panel concluded that the Tribunal’s order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference and accordingly dismissed the writ petition while affirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

HC faults non-constitution of Building Tribunal

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reprimanded the practice of dragging municipal building disputes directly to the High Court, observing that the failure of the state to constitute a specialised Building Tribunal has led to an unnecessary “flooding” of judicial dockets that are already severely overburdened. The panel of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin is dealing with a writ appeal filed by J. Srinivas Yadav and another challenging the building permission dated October 10, 2025, granted by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) in favour of a private party. In the earlier round of litigation, the single judge upheld the building permission granted, observing that the permission was granted after due verification of the prima facie title. In appeal, the petitioner would contend that GHMC has acted in violation of the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, which empowers the Municipal Commissioner to revoke or cancel building permissions granted. During the hearing, the panel observed that the dispute was rooted in a complex history of litigation, including a civil suit for perpetual injunction and a writ petition where liberty was granted to submit fresh applications under the TS-bPASS system. The panel noted that such factual and technical disputes are precisely why the legislature introduced Section 462-A into the GHMC Act in 2017, which mandates the constitution of a Municipal Building Tribunal, comprising both judicial and technical members, specifically empowered to decide appeals regarding building regulations and adjudicate statutory contraventions. Taking judicial notice of the mounting case numbers, the panel further highlighted that the existence of such a tribunal would "obviate a number of disputes being straight away brought to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." It emphasised that Section 462-A(10) explicitly bars the jurisdiction of other courts once such a tribunal is in place, yet the specialised body remains unestablished nearly a decade after the law was enacted. The panel directed the GHMC to bring the original records of the building permission proceedings to the next date of hearing. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State undertook to take up the issue with the State Government for the expeditious constitution of the Tribunal.

HC refuses to interfere with Khammam Civic Body Show Cause Notice

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court refused to interfere with a show cause notice issued by the Khammam Municipal Corporation alleging encroachment of a public road and unhygienic conditions caused by a chicken shop, observing that the Court cannot ordinarily interfere with a show cause notice in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sk. Jani Miya approached the High Court questioning a show cause notice dated June 23, 2025 issued by municipal authorities. The petitioner sought a direction restraining the authorities from dispossessing him or demolishing Shop No.1 where he was running Madina Chicken Shop at Moti Nagar, Khammam. It was the contention of the Petitioner that firstly, the notice should not have been served to him since he is not the owner; that such notice could only have been issued after a complaint by Mutawali and not otherwise. During the hearing, the judge noted that the notice asked the Petitioner explanation for the complaint that he is creating unhygienic conditions in the area and that he is encroaching the road, and subsequently remarked that it is not inclined to entertain the plea. The Petitioner argued that nearly 80 shops existed in a straight line in the same locality and that no action had been taken against them and that he was being singled out. The judge, however, observed that the impugned communication was only a show cause notice and that the petitioner had an opportunity to respond before the authorities. Remarking, that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge a show cause notice, the judge declined to entertain the petition. The judge thereafter granted one day time to the counsel to get instructions on withdrawing the petition.