Telangana HC Rules Against Arbitrary Intervention by Regulators

Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court observed that statutory authorities cannot arbitrarily obstruct lawful business of manufacturers and restrained state authorities from intervening with the manufacture, sale and distribution of bio-stimulant products by Lucid Crop Care, a Hyderabad-based company. The judge was hearing a writ petition challenging the action of the agriculture department in obstructing the licensed business operations of the company involving bio-products containing amino acids and seaweed extracts. The petitioner alleged that the intervention was illegal, arbitrary and beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities. The judge, after examining the material on record observed that the petitioner was entitled to continue manufacturing and marketing its bio-products in accordance with the law. The judge clarified that while authorities were empowered to verify whether products meet statutory requirements, they cannot arbitrarily obstruct lawful business activities without following due process. The judge directed that regulatory authorities may conduct inspections and collect samples to ensure compliance with legal standards, but such oversight must be exercised strictly in accordance with law and not in a manner that disrupts legitimate commercial operations.

2. Verdict reserved in sacking of addl kazi

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reserved verdict in a writ appeal challenging the removal of an additional kazi of Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar, Hyderabad, under the Kazis Act, 1880. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Mohd Zaheeruddin, challenging an order of a single judge upholding GO Rt. No. 65 issued on August 7, 2025, which removed him from office. The writ petitioner was removed following allegations that his naib kazis were involved in performing child marriages and other illegal activities, leading to police cases. The single judge, while dismissing the writ petition, observed that showcause notices were issued to the petitioner and he was afforded full opportunity to present his defence. The single judge observed that under the statute, any marriage performed by a naib kazi bore the signature of the kazi (the appellant), and thus the appellant could not deny responsibility for the illegalities recorded in ACP reports and enquiry findings. In appeal, the appellant contended that the court erred in its findings as no formal enquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined, and no documents were supplied to him. He contended that relying on untested FIRs and police reports without a proper fact-finding process amounts to a direct violation of audi alteram partem. It was further argued that the Kazis Act did not create vicarious liability, and the actions of naib kazis should not be automatically attributed to the appellant. Opposing the appeal, counsel for the respondents argued that three showcause notices were issued to the petitioner which clearly contained the allegations. It was argued that the appellant could now claim a lack of opportunity or procedural lapses when the same was not agitated in the writ petition. He pointed out that the government was empowered under Section 2 of the Kazis Act to take disciplinary action based on the cogent material available on record. The panel reserved its verdict and posted the matter for judgment.

3. HC spikes plea to cancel gun licence

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of firearms licences allegedly held by an individual accused of serious criminal activities. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Ghousia Begum, challenging the inaction of police authorities in revoking three firearms licences. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the grant of arms licences to alleged habitual offenders posed a serious threat to public safety and was contrary to statutory provisions and police standing orders. Opposing the plea, the government pleader contended that no rowdy sheets were pending against the unofficial respondents and that the police had not found grounds warranting preventive action. Advocate P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, appearing for the unofficial respondents, argued that the allegations were baseless and unsupported by material evidence. He submitted that no substantive record was placed before the court to justify initiation of action against his clients. After considering the arguments, the court dismissed the writ petition and observed that the factual allegations against the unofficial respondents were not supported by substantial evidence on record.

4. Scam case accused gets bail

The Telangana High Court granted regular bail to an accused alleged of investment fraud case involving `1.29 crore. The judge allowed a criminal petition filed by Mohammed Javedulla Khan, who challenged the case registered against him by the Cybercrime Police Station, EOW Team-VIII, Hyderabad. According to the prosecution, the accused, under the guise of ‘T.K. Trading Company’, allegedly induced investors to part with large sums of money by promising assured returns. It was alleged that investments totalling `46 lakh and `83 lakh were made between September 2023 and April 2025; however, neither the principal amounts nor the promised returns were repaid. The petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, pointing out that a suit for specific performance was instituted in respect of the same transaction. It was argued that the Telangana Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act was not attracted to the present case. Opposing the plea, the prosecution cited the magnitude of the amount involved and the pendency of the investigation. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner remained in judicial custody since December 6, 2025, and that witnesses were examined, the judge enlarged the accused on bail.