HC Orders Notice in Challenge to Child Protection Rules

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday ordered notice in a PIL challenging the vires of Rule 31 of the TS Commission for Protection of Child Rights (TSPCR) Rules made under the Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar heard a PIL filed by Keethineedi Akhil Sri Guru Teja challenging the rule that prescribes that any person who has at least 10 years of experience in the areas stated in the Act may be appointed as TSPCR chairperson or member. Additionally, the state government issued a notification on January 25 for recruitment of the chairperson or members by imposing the eligibility criteria: a. Any person who has at least 10 years of experience and an outstanding track record in the promotion of welfare of children in education; b. child health care welfare or child development; c. Juvenile justice or care of neglected or marginalised children with disabilities; d. elimination of child labour or children in distress; e. child psychology or sociology and laws relating to children. This notification was also challenged as ultra vires.

Don’t interfere with temple: HC

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar on Thursday directed the endowments department not to interfere with the management of Jaya Mahankali temple at Boigudakaman, Aghapura here. The judge was dealing with a writ plea of Mettu Vijay Kumar, who had earlier made a representation to the department to hand over the temple's management to him. It was a temple with ‘nil income’ and he was a founder member, Kumar said. On inquiry, the department decided to appoint him as a trustee but no proceedings were issued. Pending consideration of his multiple representations, the judge directed the authorities not to interfere with the services of the petitioners and the activities of the temple, whose presiding deities are Mahakali Devi, Saraswathi Devi, Laxmi Devi, Pochamma Bhudevi, and Kalika Devi.

Move HMDA if aggrieved: HC

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday refused to set aside the judgment of a single judge, who had dismissed a writ petition complaining of fraud in obtaining construction permission. The single judge had rejected two writ petitions challenging the HMDA inaction in cancelling a draft layout of the land in Pasamamula, Abdullapurpet, RR district. It was the case of the petitioners that they were log-jammed in civil litigation involving various private respondents and the permission was based on subsequent sale deeds made by a common vendor. It was contended by M. Balakrishnan, the petitioner, that in January 2022, they had obtained registered sale deeds in 1989 but their vendor again executed sale deeds and had also filed a suit for cancellation of the 1989 sale deeds. It was the case of the petitioner that their layout was based on sale deeds, the cancellation of which is the subject note of the civil suits. The single judge had ruled that any cancellation of a registration can only be done by a civil court and the remedy sought against the HMDA was misconceived. The bench left it open to the appellant to exercise rights under Section 22 of the HMDA Act and approach the appropriate authorities. The panel made it clear that such an application shall be heard and disposed of by HMDA after hearing all parties and in accordance with law.

HC junks appeal on SCR co-op body

A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, on Thursday, dismissed a writ appeal challenging the election notification on the results of the election to the South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society. The panel dismissed an appeal challenging an order of a single judge, who had dismissed the petition. It was contended that the society was a multi-state cooperative society and its bylaws, which form the basis for the election, were made contrary to that. Chikkudu Prabhakar, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out various alleged illegalities and procedural lapses in making the rules based upon which the elections were held. The election process started in August 2023 and under the bylaws, a person was disqualified from holding the post of director if he had held such office for “two immediately preceding consecutive terms”. It was also contended that the elections were held without providing reservations to SC, ST communities, and women. Vedula Venkata Ramana, senior counsel appearing for the society, pointed out that the writ petition was dismissed by a single judge on the ground that once the election notification was issued, the only remedy available was to file an election petition.

HDFC directed to pay municipal tax

Justice T. Vinod Kumar directed HDFC Bank to pay its tax dues in two equal installments by March 15. It was the case of the petitioner, HDFC Bank, that a notice has been served upon it by the GHMC commissioner, Tank Bund, and other authorities demanding `77,69,790 towards property tax arrears with respect to the premises at Road No 1, Banjara Hills. It was the contention of the petitioner that it was only the tenant and that the owners were liable to pay the tax. The petitioner submitted an undertaking that it shall pay the tax dues on a conditional basis in case the owner of the premises decides to pay the amount. The judge was of the view that the issue pertains to public money, which is at risk, and the petitioner being a leading bank must ensure compliance.

( Source : Deccan Chronicle )
Next Story