HC Keeps Lookout Circular for Cancer Researcher in Abeyance

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court kept in abeyance a look-out circular (LOC) issued against a cancer research scientist on his assurance that he would cooperate with an ongoing investigation. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr Siva Kumar Sangarappan S. Sivalalar, who challenged the LOC in connection with an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing Team-VII, CCS, Hyderabad. The petitioner sought a declaration that the action of the authorities in opening the LOC and restraining his international travel was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and sought that the circular be cancelled. According to the petitioner, he was arrayed as an accused in a case arising out of disputes relating to corporate equity shareholding of a company in which he was an equity shareholder. Upon learning of the registration of the FIR, he approached the High Court and obtained anticipatory bail. It was argued that continuation of the LOC was unnecessary in view of the protection already granted by the court and his undertaking.

2.No stay on Ameenpur land acquisition

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday refused to grant interim protection in a writ petition challenging the action of the land acquisition authorities in undertaking a demarcation exercise affecting a convention hall situated in Ameenpur. The challenge was on the ground that the impugned action was without issuing prior notice or undertaking the statutory publication process. The judge was dealing with a writ petition instituted by Kandukuri Jagadeeswara Rao, assailing the action of the authorities in allegedly earmarking a portion of his convention hall premises for acquisition without adhering to the procedure contemplated under law. It was argued that the process was in the absence of any newspaper publication or public notification. The petitioner alleged that such action was ex facie arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the statutory safeguards governing land acquisition proceedings. Counsel submitted that the convention hall constituted sole means of sustenance of petitioner and expressed a bona fide apprehension that coercive action, including demolition of the structure, may be undertaken over the weekend unless the court intervened. Having regard to the statutory position, the court was not inclined to grant immediate interim protection. The court directed the authorities to obtain instructions and posted the case for consideration on Monday.

3.Superintendents challenge promotion rules

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court declined to stay promotions proposed under the amended Telangana Government Life Insurance State Service Rules, 2025, while examining a challenge to the validity of the amended eligibility criteria. A panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by D. Anjaneyulu and five others, superintendents in the Directorate of Insurance. The petitioners challenged Rule 6(2)(1) of the Telangana Government Life Insurance State Service Rules as amended in 2025. It was the case of the petitioners that the amended rule prescribed a degree qualification along with three years of experience in the supervisory cadre for promotion, which was contrary to the parent rules and in violation of the Constitution. The panel observed that there were candidates who remained eligible for promotion even under the amended framework and, therefore, no immediate case was made out for stalling the promotional process. The panel made it clear that any promotions, if effected during the pendency of the writ plea, would remain subject to the final outcome of the case and observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies if they are individually aggrieved by any promotion orders.