Telangana High Court. (DC Image)
HYDERABAD: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court stayed an enquiry by the CCLA with regard to a land parcel in Raidurg. The notice for hearing of the matter was in his capacity as heading the court of wards. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Shammi Akhthar Hussaini with regard to the property in Survey No. 46. The petitioner contended that the CCLA had stated that the property was government land. As one who has pre-judged the issue, the petitioner cannot be asked to go through the motions of an enquiry, the petitioner maintained. Counsel for the petitioner raised the issue that the notice itself was bad in law since such notice was also given to a realtor company called Lorven Projects Private Limited. He said that a third party is barred from being a party to an enquiry under Section 3 of the Court of Wards Act.
HC direction to BAI on U-17 tourney
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Thursday directed the Badminton Association of India (BAI) to permit two rival candidates to participate in the Under-17 badminton tournament. The judge made an interim order suspending the exclusion of Neredimelli Deepshika and directed that she be allowed to play. It was the case of Deepshika that her exclusion was contrary to her stated stance of her date of birth. Mayur Mundra, appearing on behalf of Praanjala Nisarga, moved an urgent lunch motion contending that as a consequence of the order of the court, she had been excluded. It was contended that the date of birth of the writ petitioner was false and her consequential deletion affected her chances. Bhaskar Reddy after hearing both sides directed BAI to allow both players to participate in the ongoing U-17 tournament.
Order reserved on service tax plea
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, reserved a verdict on whether research supplies made by a company in India were liable to service tax. The bench was dealing with a writ petition filed by Nektar Therapeutics Pvt Ltd. The petitioner contended that ‘supplies’ made by them amount to the export of services and are not liable for service tax. The petitioner questioned the refusal of return of service tax of approximately Rs 30 crore as, according to the petitioners, the end users were based out of the USA. Revenue officials contended that the supplies were made in India. Dominic Fernandes, senior counsel for revenue, pointed out that the order under challenge was at best a show-cause notice and therefore the petitioner must reply to it and not rush to the High Court.
Defaulting fuel outlet’s plea dismissed
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by a defaulting retailer of petrol and diesel. Kalluri Ravi questioned an order of the single judge who refused to set aside an order of IOCL cancelling a letter of intent granted in favour of the petitioner to start a retail outlet at Alwalpad at Jogulamba in Gadwal district. IOCL had rejected the case of the petitioner for having failed to establish its outlet for 19 months after the appointment. The time initially granted was four months.
Single judge order on Jamia masjid polls set aside
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court allowed a writ appeal by setting aside an order of a single judge whereby elections for the managing committee of Jamia Masjid, Mallepally, were set aside. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Mohd Saleem Ahmed, president and six members of the managing committee. The appellants said that the single judge order had passed the order without hearing them. The single judge in her order had observed that all the seven members were appointed based on a representation from Asaduddin Owaisi, MP, to the CEO, TS Wakf Board. She recorded that "It cannot be the satisfaction of a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Minister in the Government of the State that will decide the necessity to establish a committee and who shall be the members of the committee. It is obvious and ancillary to the power of the Board to appoint committees, that it is required to be decided not by any outside agency or person but by the Board. The special officer, who exercised the powers of the board, thus could decide on his own whether it was/is necessary to establish the above ad hoc committee and who would/shall be the members of the committee. He could not have decided to appoint an ad hoc managing committee because a certain MLA wanted him to do so or because a minister in the state endorsed the recommendations of the MLA." The bench remitted the matter to a single judge for adjudication on merits.