Telangana High Court Upholds Preventive Detention of Jewel Thief

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar, upheld the preventive detention of Nazim Aziz Kotadia, detained under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986, rejecting the plea filed by his father, Aziz Hassan Kotadia, seeking his release through a writ of habeas corpus. The prosecution said the detenue was involved in theft of jewellery from shops, including one incident in Medchal, during which he attempted to murder the shop owner when the latter tried to apprehend him. Nazim Aziz was booked under Section 307 of the BNS, which deals with theft with preparation for violence and was subsequently sent to Central Prison, Cherlapalli, by order of the Cyberabad police commissioner. It was contended that the detenue was a habitual offender and fell within the definition of a ‘goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The division bench noted that the detenue’s acts, committed in public places, disturbed public order and warranted preventive detention. The court rejected the plea that there was a violation of procedural safeguards on the ground that the detenue was unfamiliar with the English language. The bench accepted the argument advanced by government pleader Swaroop Oorilla, who contended that the detainee’s past conduct and likelihood of committing successive offences justified his continued detention. The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

HC orders diet contract for tribal woman

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the chairman of the Nirmal district diet managing committee and other competent authorities to award a hospital diet supply contract to a tribal woman contractor who has been supplying food to inpatients for nearly a decade. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by L. Jhansi, a member of the Scheduled Tribe community, who contended that the contract for supplying diet to government hospitals was improperly allotted to another bidder through a draw of lots, despite a clause in the tender notification stating that local women would be given preference. The dispute arose from a tender notification issued in June 2025 for the supply of diet to patients at Community Health Centres in Mudhole and Bhainsa and the Area Hospital in Narsapur. Multiple bidders, including the petitioner, quoted an identical rate of `72 per patient per day. The district authorities conducted a draw of lots among those tied on price and selected the unofficial respondent, a society, without informing the petitioner. She argued that she was neither notified nor given an opportunity to be present during the finalisation process and that her statutory priority as a local tribal woman was ignored. The respondents contended that all qualified bidders consented to the draw of lots and that the petitioner’s husband had been informed. They argued that there was no violation, as participation in the bidding process did not guarantee a right to be awarded the contract, and no exclusive preference was mandated under law. They contended that the petitioner failed to submit the necessary certification at the time of bidding and only produced it later before the court. The judge observed that the tender notification contained a clear note specifying that eligible local women, particularly from Mahila Samakhya or local districts, should be given preference. The petitioner, being a local Scheduled Tribe community woman and an experienced existing contractor, satisfied the required criteria and quoted the same rate as other bidders. The judge held that such a preference could not be bypassed merely by resorting to a draw of lots, especially when the tender conditions recognised priority for local women.

Declare sports quota results, TGPSC told

Justice Namavarapu Rajeswar Rao of the Telangana High Court directed the general administration department and other authorities to declare the results of sports quota in government recruitment. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ pleas filed by G. Sammaih and several other sportspersons who participated in senior national, junior national, and university-level events. The petitioners contended that the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC) wrongly restricted the benefit of the quota only to those who represented India in international competitions under Form-I of the government order of August 2012. They pointed out that though the Group-I recruitment notification issued in February 2024 earmarked four posts under the 2 per cent quota, the commission allowed only one such candidate to appear for the mains until the court, by an interim order, directed that all petitioners be permitted to take part, subject to the result of the case. The state and the commission maintained that only candidates with Form-I certificates were eligible for Group-I posts. The petitioners argued that these forms were merely proof of participation and not a basis to deny consideration, as the government orders clearly recognised merit across all levels of sport under Annexures I and II. Referring to the government order of August 2012, the judge noted that Annexure-III, which contained Forms I to IV, was “a mere certificate to be enclosed” for verifying participation issued by authorised sports associations. The judge held that the forms were only for authentication and could not limit eligibility under the quota. Accordingly, the judge directed the authorities to declare the withheld results of candidates whose participation was recognised under Annexures I and II and to fill the posts kept vacant pursuant to interim orders if they are found eligible. The judge further directed that in future recruitments, departments must follow Annexures I and II for applying the 2 per cent sports quota.

 HC to resume hearing in AMVI test case

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ appeal challenging an order directing re-medical examinations for several candidates disqualified during the recruitment process for assistant motor vehicle inspector (AMVI) posts. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ appeal filed by Bumbathula Sravan Kumar and others. The appeal arose from a single judge’s order directing fresh medical tests for nine petitioners, questioning the fairness and transparency of the medical evaluation conducted at Osmania General Hospital. The recruitment process, initiated under a TGPSC notification on December 31, 2022, aimed to fill 113 AMVI vacancies. While the notification expressly barred any requests for re-medical examinations, several candidates alleged serious procedural lapses during the mandatory medical and physical tests conducted between July 1 and 6, 2024. The petitioners claimed the examinations were inconsistent, non-standardised, and lacked proper authentication from the medical board. Complaints included varying measurement points, missing board signatures, and arbitrary chest expansion tests for women, contrary to established protocols. Despite high scores in the written examination, these candidates were eliminated at the medical stage, and their hall ticket numbers were omitted from the final selection list released in October 2024. The TGPSC defended its process, contending that all tests complied with the transport department rules. The commission argued that petitioners were found medically unfit due to insufficient chest expansion, inadequate height, or failed vision tests, and maintained that allowing re-medical examinations would contravene precedents that bar reopening medical determinations. The single judge noted significant anomalies, highlighting that two petitioners already serving in government roles with identical physical standards had been declared unfit. Observing a lack of uniformity and transparency, the judge directed fresh medical tests for a few candidates. The selected candidates filed an appeal, arguing that the writ plea was infructuous after the final selection and that permitting re-medicals could disrupt the completed recruitment process. The panel posted the matter for further hearing in November.