HC Extends Orders Against HYDRAA

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court extended the status quo order earlier granted in a writ plea challenging the actions of the HYDRAA regarding the demarcation of full tank level (FTL) and buffer zone of two water bodies in Allapur, Kukatpally mandal. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by aggrieved landowners contending that the respondent authorities unilaterally undertook survey operations marking the FTL and buffer zone of Suddalavanikunta and Sunnam Cheruvu without issuing notice or considering their objections. The petitioners submitted that such actions were in violation of HYDRAA’s submissions before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, Chennai. Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that there was a subsisting boundary dispute between land situated in Guttala Begumpet, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district, and that of Allapur. The police, acting under the influence of respondent authorities, were interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners, and the current survey disregarded an earlier boundary fixation exercise. The petitioners contended that the actions of the authorities were arbitrary and without legal basis. The judge posted the matter to Monday while continuing the interim direction to maintain the status quo until further orders.

HC halts BHEL's threat on retirement benefits

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court suspended the notice issued by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) against its serving and retired employees. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the members of Sri Sneha BHEL Employees Mutually Aided Co-Operative Housing Society Limited. The petitioners challenged the action of BHEL in threatening the petitioners to withdraw post-retirement medical benefits and take disciplinary action under the CDA Rules against employees associated with the petitioner society. The impugned notice, the petitioners argued, was issued as retaliation for filing a civil suit and securing an injunction against BHEL in an ongoing land dispute. Mayur Mundra, counsel for the petitioner, contended that they had lawfully acquired three acres and 31 guntas from the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC) through a registered sale deed in 2017, after due governmental approval vide G.O. dated February 19, 2014. Following interference from BHEL, the petitioners sought a court-monitored survey and obtained an injunction order from the civil court restraining BHEL from disturbing possession. However, BHEL, allegedly in a colourable exercise of power, issued the notice on withdrawal of retirement benefits for the reason of going against the interest of the company. Petitioner’s counsel contended that fighting for their rights before a court of law could not be called going against the interest of the company. Considering the same, Justice Madhavi Devi passed an order suspending the impugned notice.

Mother moves HC for custody of 3 children

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ of habeas corpus for the production and custody of three minor female children, who are allegedly being retained by their biological father. The panel of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by an advocate from Ranga Reddy district. The petitioner alleged that her husband, under the instigation of an unknown woman, attempted to kill her and she managed to escape with the help of the children. She alleged that the children aged 3, 6 and 8 were currently in the custody of the husband, not attending school, and that she did not know about their well-being despite repeated efforts to secure their return. The petitioner contended that the women’s centre directed the respondent father to hand over the children to her. The children’s absence from school, she claimed, had prompted repeated inquiries from the school authorities. The special government pleader for the state, on instructions, submitted that the three children were with their biological father and that the petitioner and her husband were involved in matrimonial disputes. The government pleader contended that the petitioner was attempting to resolve those issues through the habeas corpus jurisdiction of the court. The panel posted the matter for further instructions.

Writ plea against unregistered rehab centres

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea seeking action against unauthorised rehabilitation centres being run without proper licences in the Medchal–Malkajgiri district. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Kanala Devi, whose husband was referred to Sai Pragathi Rehabilitation Centre, only to later discover that it was operating without valid permission. The petitioner sought to declare the inaction of the district medical and health officer, the director of public health and family welfare, and other district authorities in failing to act against the illegal operations of the rehabilitation centre as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the principles of natural justice. It was brought to the judge’s attention that the director of public health acknowledged that Sai Pragathi Rehabilitation Centre, run by Gunnala Keerthi and Kiran in Dammaiguda, Kesara mandal, was operating without requisite permissions. The centre reportedly submitted an application, which remains pending, and when the matter was brought to the notice of the district collector, an inquiry was conducted and a report submitted. The judge ordered notice to the respondents and directed the government pleader to obtain instructions from the authorities regarding the action taken, if any, and the current status of the rehabilitation centre’s licensing.

Loan recovery harassment challenged in HC

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging coercive recovery practices allegedly adopted by certain financial institutions and digital lenders in violation of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Raavi Naga Venkata Sri Ramana, a businessman. The petitioner contended that the respondent financial entities, including several banks and digital lending companies, were attempting to recover dues from him through unlawful and arbitrary means, without following the procedure laid down in the RBI Circular dated August 12, 2022, which regulates fair practices in loan recovery. The petitioner alleged that despite this circular being binding, the RBI failed to ensure its enforcement, thereby allowing lenders to resort to harassment, including persistent calls, threatening messages, and unwarranted visits to his residence and those of his friends and family members. The petitioner sought a direction to the RBI to strictly enforce the circular, initiate action against errant institutions, and restrain recovery agents and others from resorting to intimidation or privacy violations.