HYDERABAD: A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court directed the Directorate of Women Development and Child Welfare Department to forth with release custody of a three-year-old girl-child. The panel comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao was dealing with a writ plea filed by Arun Kumar Gupta and others. It is the case of the petitioners that the child was adopted in 2021 and after three years, the Directorate of Women Development and Child Welfare Department alleged ill-treatment by the adopted parent and, without issuing any show cause notice, illegally entered into the petitioner’s house and took custody of the child. Counsel for the petitioner Himangini Sanghi argued that such an action by the respondent authorities was not only contrary to the Juvenile Justice Act but also violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought compensation of `10 lakh from the department for their high-handed action. The panel, after perusing the records and considering the arguments, directed the respondents to forth with release the custody of the child and said that the committee shall not take any further action except in accordance with the law. The panel accordingly disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to seek compensation before the appropriate forum.
Panel examines Jr NTR’s WP on property
The two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao on Thursday examined a writ petition filed by actor Jr N.T. Rama Rao. The actor had challenged an order of the recovery certificate challenging the recovery of his property. According to the petitioner, an earlier recovery certificate obtained by the State Bank of India against a loan was closed by the District Collector. Jr NTR contended that on the very same property, six different banks appear to have advanced a loan to a third party who had allegedly obtained forged and false documents. When the recovery officer at the instance of the bank proceeded to attach the property, the actor filed the present petition. He specifically contended that the Debt Recovery Tribunal was hearing multiple applications for impleadment of the remaining bank and passing the attachment order while the matter was pending was illegal. It is also contended that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the theory of alternative remedy does not arise. The panel directed the matter to be posted for hearing on June 3.
HC takes up pleas against notification on GST assessment
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao took on file a bunch of writ pleas challenging the notification issued by the state government extending the period of limitation for assessment of GST. The state government’s notification comes in the background of the recommendations of the state GST Council for extending time limits specifically prescribed under the statute for recovery of tax not paid or sought paid or input credit wrongly availed or utilised. The Central government had exercised its power earlier solely in view of the Covid-19 pandemic outburst. The petitioners contended that based on the said notification the orders passed while the taxing authorities for subsequent periods were barred by limitation. Even the orders and the show cause notices were not signed manually or digitally. Keeping in view earlier orders granted in similar matters, the vacation panel directed tax authorities to file their counters and not to take coercive steps in the integrum. The panel posted the cases along with similar petitions for analogous hearing after the summer vacation.
Verdict on vacation of camp office reserved
Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court reserved his verdict on an application filed by the state government to vacate the camp office premises of former BRS MLA Nomula Bhagat Kumar. Earlier, the appropriate authority had issued a notice to the former MLA requiring him to vacate his camp office at Nagarjunasagar of which area he was the earlier sitting MLA. Earlier, he challenged the seizure of his office and its sealing. A single judge directed that the seal be removed in 48 hours. The government then filed a writ appeal and was relegated to the single judge. In a vacate application the state additional advocate general Imram Khan pointed out that the apex court had reiterated that elected members to public office are bound to vacate the premises in their possession once they lose the elections. The right to occupy premises is connected to the office they hold, he said. He accordingly pleaded that even after a notice was issued to him he did not respond. Therefore, the government was constrained to seize the premises. The judge after hearing the Vacate application in the vacation court reserved his verdict.
