Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has asked the Telangana state government to consider the case of meritorious students while fixing the seats ratio in private medical colleges.
A division bench comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice M. Ganga Rao, while passing the final order on a petition by Mr Basheeruddin Siddiqui and 13 others, felt that decreasing the convener quota and increasing the management and NRI quota seats would hamper meritorious but poor students from the minority community.
They would stand to lose irreparably and would never be able to acquire a professional medical education, the bench said.
As the seat sharing was based on the agreement entered into each year between the state government and private medical colleges, the court directed the government not to enter into agreements to the disadvantage of meritorious poor students.
The petitioners challenged GO Ms No. 115, 117 and 119 issued in July 2017 through which Category A seats were reduced to 50 per cent and seats in B and C categories enhanced to 35 per cent and and 15 per cent respectively.
Ms B. Rachna Reddy, counsel appearing for the petitioners, said that as per the GO 130 issued in 2016, the A category were 60 per cent, B and C categories 25 and 15 per cent respectively.
She submitted that due to increase of management quota and reducing seats in Category A the minority students with good NEET ranks would be forced to opt for category B seats if the college said that category A seats are filled.
The bench in August this year had stayed GOs 115 and 117 and directed the government to make admissions into unaided minority professional medical and dental Institutions for 2017-2018, in accordance with GO MS No. 130 in the ratio of 60:40.
The bench made it clear that all admissions pursuant to the interim order suspending the reduction of A category seats will continue and students shall finish their education.
Firm fails to get tax relief
The Hyderabad High Court has refused relief to Progressive Constructions Ltd and directed the commercial tax department not to take coercive measures against the firm for recovery of tax of '12.60 crore.
The company had moved two petitions challenging the assessment order passed by the commercial tax department in 2008 and a subsequent notice for public auction of its property of 2,050 square yards situated at Khairatabad for the recovery of the tax amount. It had also issued notices to banks to recover the money from the company accounts.
The company moved another petition seeking to review an earlier order that refused to direct the commercial tax department to assess tax afresh for 2008. The company contended that the assistant commissioner had passes the assessment order without jurisdiction.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy while dismissing the petitions observed that the limitation for challenging an assessment order is four years, and the company had challenged it after six years.
The bench said, “The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices.”
It said, “Where there is inordinate and unexplai-ned delay, and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the court would decline to interfere, even if the action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal.”
