Hyderabad: Justice C.V. Bhasker Reddy of the Telangana High Court rejected a writ plea challenging the notice for withdrawal of recognition of Mount Banyam Global School. The judge, however, directed the education department not to take any coercive steps pending consideration of the school management’s response to the show cause notice. He was dealing with a plea filed by Wisdom Mines Education Society questioning a notice issued to the management calling upon it to show cause why recognition granted to the school should not be withdrawn in view of the expiry of a subsisting lease on which the school is running. It was vehemently contended by the counsel of the petitioner T. Natraj that a representation by a third party cannot trigger the issuance of a show cause notice. He also pointed out that the landlord’s information to the authorities on expiry of the lease should not be the basis of withdrawal of recognition. The judge directed the authorities not to take coercive steps without passing final order after considering all the objections raised by the petitioner.
HC notice on land for private persons
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the registry to number a PIL and ordered notice to the revenue authorities to justify allotment of one acre and 15 guntas of land in Warangal district in favour of private parties. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing PIL filed by Morthala Chandar Rao and another, who questioned the proceedings of the revenue authorities in assigning the land in Gurankunta village of Geesgonda mandal in favour of Kavita Cotton Industries and one Chintapalli Veera Rao. On an objection raised by the registry, the matter came up before the PIL bench. The panel overruled the objection and directed the listing of the PIL. The panel also directed that notices be issued to the revenue authorities and to the beneficiaries.
HC takes on file
plea by a café
The Telangana High Court took on file a commercial appeal filed by the management of Cafe Bahar and restaurant against an order of a commercial court. The panel comprising, Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing with a commercial appeal filed by Bibi Hajjar Dashti, a partner in the café. The appeal was filed against an order of the principal special court in the cadre of district judge for trial and disposal of commercial disputes at Hyderabad, by which the application for interim relief qua receiver to run the business was decided and Syed Ali Asghar Bolooki appointed to run the cafe. It was contended by the appellant that there was a dispute between the appellant and the respondent and therefore the respondent should not have been appointed as the receiver. The panel ordered notice to the respondents and deferred the hearing.
Joint collector’s order set aside
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of the Sangareddy joint collector, seeking to cancel assignment of land on the ground that at the time of the assignment the assignees were minors and the petitioner’s father was an attender in the tahsil office. The notice was issued 30 years after the grant of assignment, the petitioners Mirza Shamsheer Baig and Mirza Ghouse Baig, both sexagenarians of Medak, submitted in a detailed explanation. Five years after the notice was issued, the joint collector in February 2008 cancelled the pattas. The judge noticed that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property and their names were mutated in the revenue records and they dug a bore well and obtained electricity connection and were carrying out agricultural operations. The judge observed that the petitioners submitted a detailed explanation but the joint collector without considering the same and without giving any reason stated that the explanation offered by the petitioners was not convincing, and passed the cryptic order. The respondent No. 1, while exercising the quasi-judicial powers under the Act, ought to have given reasons by considering the explanation as well as the reply submitted by the petitioners. Justice Sreenivas Rao also faulted the authorities for exercising the power at a belated stage. Merely because there was no limitation prescribed, Justice Sreenivas Rao observed, authority could not exercise the power “after long lapse of time.”
