Water Connection Domestic To Commercial On The Ground Physiotherapy Services At Home - HC Warns Water Board Authorities

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has warned senior officials of the HMWS&SB that they could face imprisonment for wilfully disobeying judicial orders, expressing strong displeasure over their failure to restore a domestic water connection despite a clear direction issued nearly a year ago.

Justice Alishetty Laxminarayan, taking a stern view, questioning whether the Water Board officials understood the legal process or were deliberately refusing to implement the court's orders. The judge observed that if the board was aggrieved by the directions issued by a single judge in 2025, it ought to have challenged them before an appellate court rather than continue to resist compliance on the same grounds.

The contempt proceedings arose from the board's decision to convert a domestic water connection into a commercial connection on the ground that the houseowner was running physiotherapy clinical services on the premises. The High Court had faulted the action in 2025 and directed the board's chief general manager (revenue) and general manager (engineering) to restore the connection to the domestic category.

Panuganti Vijay Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that despite the specific directions, the authorities failed to implement the order, prompting the petitioner to initiate contempt proceedings. Even after the contempt case was admitted, the board continued to maintain that its rules and regulations did not permit the reclassification.

During Friday's hearing, the court took exception to the officials repeating the very same arguments that had been considered and rejected while disposing of the original writ petition. The judge pointed out that the board had neither complied with the directions nor challenged the single judge's order through an appeal, but was seeking to reopen the same issues in the contempt proceedings.

Taking note of the assurance by the officials who appeared before the court on Friday, Justice Laxminarayan granted the authorities two weeks to implement the order and adjourned the matter to November 28. The judge cautioned that failure to comply within the extended time would invite serious consequences, including imprisonment for contempt of court.

HC allows state appeal on enhancement fee on Bars- remanded to single bench

Hyderabad:A Telangana High Court division bench on Friday partly allowed the state government's appeal challenging the interim stay orders issued by a single judge bench on the enhancement of bar licence fees midway through the excise year. The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao remanded the issue back to the single judge for fresh consideration.

The single judge had on October 30 granted a stay for a period of four weeks on the implementation of the special privilege fee imposed through GO Ms. No. 205, dated October 19 issued by the excise department. More than 50 bar and restaurant owners approached the High Court challenging the GO and contended that increasing the fee after the commencement of the excise year was legally impermissible and contrary to a Supreme Court ruling that protected licensees from mid-term fee revisions.

Challenging the interim stay orders, the state government filed an appeal which the division bench heard on Friday.

During the hearing, P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy counsel for the bars and restaurants, cited the Supreme Court’s decision, which had rejected the government's contention that licensees, by accepting the licence conditions, had agreed to any subsequent increase in fees and were therefore barred from questioning such revisions. Had the government announced the proposed increase before October 1, 2026, bar owners would have had the opportunity to decide whether to continue their businesses under the revised financial terms, counsel submitted.

There are approximately 1,100 bars and restaurants and 2,500 ‘A4’ category liquor retail outlets in Telangana. The bench questioned whether bars sold liquor at the same prices as the ‘A4’ retail outlets. Counsel explained that bars charged higher prices, prompting consumers to prefer retail shops where liquor was available at lower rates. They also referred to differences in licence fees and profit margins between the two categories and said some neighbouring States had addressed similar concerns through government-level committees.

However, Mohd Imran Khan , additional AG, appearing for state argued that the government could enhance the fees. He requested the court to set aside the single judge's stay orders.