Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of Telangana High Court on Tuesday issued notice to GHMC in a writ appeal directed to maintain status quo with regard to a structure and revoking building permission. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti was dealing with a writ appeal filed by B. Ravinder and another, challenging an order of a single judge directing further action in the matter of revocation of building permission obtained by the appellant on account of their title to the property having been found defective by another court. Earlier, a single judge passed the order in a writ petition filed by Abbineni Srinivasa Rao, challenging the action of the GHMC in not taking action after issuing a showcause notice proposing to revoke the building permission granted for a property situated at Kondapur village, Rangareddy district. Senior counsel for the appellant C.V. Mohan Reddy argued that the order of the single judge was against the principles of natural justice and passed without hearing the appellants. The bench while ordering notice to the respondents directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the structure on the land in question.
Residents near SCCL mine move HC
A two-judge bench of Telangana High Court issued notice to the directorate of mines and the TS Pollution Control Board (TSPCB) in a writ petition challenging mining operations carried out by SCCL in Srirampur OCPII. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti was dealing with a writ petition filed by Namala Satyavathi and another persons. The petitioners, residents of the villages in the areas near where the mining operations are carried on by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL). The grievance of the petitioners was that the mining operations were being carried out in violation of the terms in the permit, and for which authorities were not taking action against SCCL. The petitioner alleged that SCCL was carrying out mining operations without environmental clearance and permission from the TSPCB.
Canbank told to update data
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed Canbank Factors Ltd to update the Cibil data of a petitioner. The judge was disposing of a writ plea filed by Shree Jaya Laboratories Pvt Ltd questioning the inaction of the bank in not considering its multiple representation and in not removing its status as a defaulter. The petitioner required that the bank communicate to the Credit Information Bureau of India Ltd (Cibil) to recall the adverse entry in its database. The petitioner is bulk drug intermediary manufacturing unit at Malkapur in Yadadri district. A demand was made by Canbank requiring the petitioner to pay Rs 3.42 crores and issued a threat of declaring the petitioner as defaulter. It was the case of the petitioner that Canbank “is neither a banker not a lender to the company and therefore it cannot declare the petitioner as a wilful defaulter. Canbank moved the NCLT unsuccessfully for the amount due. When the petitioner company required Canbank to de-notify its status as a defaulter and intimate the same to Cibil, the action was not taken. Cibil in its counter before the court contended that its flagging of the account was only based upon the action of Canbank and it cannot unilaterally alter the status of the petitioner. Based on the multiple representations, made between August and September 2022, the judge required Canbank to pass orders on the representations, duly communicating the decision to Cibil within two weeks.
Hearing on water supply plea deferred
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court deferred hearing of a matter pertaining to the failure of the HMWS&SB to consider the request for water supply. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Mohd Saleem who contended that a representation was made to the board and others regarding the unavailability of water supply to the petitioner’s building situated at Sri Krishnanagar, Yousufguda. The petitioner submitted that arepresentation was also made to revise the bills that were being issued exorbitantly by failing to consider the meter as a single-user connection. In the course of the argument, the judge pointed out that the building was a semi-commercial building due to which the petitioner may not be entitled to the water supply to which the petitioner contended that the building came under the domestic division. The court granted a week time to the respondents to get instructions.
