Telangana HC Takes up GHMC Ward Delimitation Case

Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court accepted a writ plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 and GO MS No. 570 of 1996, qua ward delimitation in the GHMC. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Syed Saleem challenging the implementation of the delimitation of wards for GHMC. The petitioner submitted that such delimitation based on the number of voters rather than the population violated the intent of Article 243 of the Constitution. Counsel for the petitioner argued that such a method led to severe inequality in representation of the total 150 wards from which 117 are allegedly misaligned, 38 are overpopulated while 79 are underpopulated. He further argued that such a segregation violates the government orders and defeats the purpose of fair and effective governance. He sought to stay the conduct of GHMC elections until a proper re-delimitation exercise is carried out or until the disposal of the writ petition. The judge directed the respondents to seek instructions and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

2. Habeas corpus in Maoist case dismissed

The Telangana High Court closed a writ petetion seeking the production of a woman allegedly taken into custody by the police, after the state submitted that the detenu was formally arrested and produced before the magistrate following due process of law. A panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a habeas corpus writ plea filed by Narla Sudhakar Sharma, father of the alleged detenu Narla Sri Vidya. The petitioner, a senior citizen, alleged that his daughter was picked up by armed police personnel in civilian clothes at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, on July 24 and expressed apprehension that she was being illegally detained without communication or legal safeguards. The petitioner sought her production before the court, recording of her statement and her release from custody. In response, the state authorities submitted that Sri Vidya was taken into custody on July 24 based on credible information that she was a state committee member of the banned Maoists. It was stated that her residence was searched in the presence of mediators and government officials and a confessional-cum-seizure panchanama was recorded. Various items, including digital storage devices and cash, were recovered. The state submitted that after completing arrest formalities, including issuance of an arrest memo and medical examination, she was produced before the VIII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate. Authorities claimed that her father was informed of the arrest as required under the BNSS. It was also stated that the detenu had a history of involvement with the banned organisation, had previously been implicated in a 2019 case and was named in official lists of underground cadres. Following these submissions, the panel closed the habeas corpus petition.

3. HC admits plea on NIMS fire video

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the alleged inaction of the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (Nims) in addressing a viral video falsely circulated during a recent fire incident at its Punjagutta campus. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Sindhe Dattahari and Sindhe Meghana, seeking to declare that the inaction of Nims in responding to their complaints stood as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Constitution. The complaints pertained to an alleged misleading video that surfaced during a fire on April 19, 2025, in the trauma block of the emergency department at Nims hospital. According to the petitioners, the video was deliberately circulated to incite panic and tarnish the institution’s reputation. They contended that Nims failed to take any steps to verify, counter or investigate the source of the false information, which, they argued, stood in violation of the Indian Medical Council Act and established principles of law. The petitioners sought a direction to respondents to consider their representations and constitute an expert inquiry committee to investigate the origin of the video. They sought strict action against the individual responsible for its circulation. The respondents sought time to file their response.

4. HC declines to halt mill auction

A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday refused to stay the auction of assets belonging to Suryajyoti Spinning Mills Ltd, a company under liquidation, scheduled to take place later on Monday. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P. Sam Koshy was hearing a writ plea filed by Arun Kumar Agarwal, ex-director of the company, who challenged an order of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) refusing to stay the auction n otice issued by official liquidator on June 19. According to the petitioner, earlier efforts for a compromise failed following which the official liquidator issued the sale notice to dispose of the assets of company. Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Stakeholders Consultation Committee (SCC), in a recent meeting, discussed the viability of the company as a going concern and recommended cancellation of the sale notice. Based on this recommendation, the official liquidator moved an application before the NCLT seeking a stay on the auction. During the course of arguments, the official liquidator informed the court that the auction is scheduled to commence at 6 pm and that the SCC was yet to take a final decision on the compromise proposal. Senior counsel argued that if third-party interests were created through the auction, it would frustrate any potential compromise. The panel speaking through the Chief Justice observed that proceedings before the NCLT were ongoing for six years, previous attempts at compromise could not be fructified, and if the SCC was serious about pursuing a compromise it ought to have arrived at a decision long ago. Therefore, the court was not inclined to stay the auction notice issued by the official liquidator. However, the panel granted liberty to the official liquidator to file a fresh application before the NCLT for revival of the company in case a compromise materialises. It was brought to the notice of court that the official liquidator was required to obtain approval from the SCC before finalising the auction. The bench then clarified that the official liquidator may, within a week, approach the NCLT either for confirmation of the auction sale or for revival of the company. The panel issued notice to all respondents and posted the matter for further hearing on August 5.