HC To Decide Plea Of Convict Accused Of Patricide

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of a man for murdering his father. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was dealing with an appeal challenging the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, convicting the man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the accused, who married 12 years ago and was reportedly pressuring his father for money and facing matrimonial issues, entered the family home and fatally attacked his father. The prosecution’s key witnesses in the case were the mother of the accused and neighbours, who supported the version of events stated by the prosecution. It was brought to the notice of the court that the brother of the accused also lodged a prior complaint with the police, indicating a background of domestic discord. The matter is posted to July 23, for further proceedings.

College secures relief over BTech affiliation

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the state government and Osmania University to consider the application of Vivek Vardhini Institute of Technology for granting no-objection certificate (NOC) and affiliation for its newly approved BTech programmes for 2025-26. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Vivek Vardhini Education Society and others challenging the alleged inaction of the government and Osmania University in granting permissions despite approval from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The petitioners contended that the failure to issue Government Orders and NOC was arbitrary and in violation of their constitutional rights which guaranteed minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. During the hearing, counsel for the respondent assured the court that the representations of the petitioner would be duly considered. The judge taking note of these submissions disposed of the writ petition with a direction to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders within three weeks from the date of receiving the order.

Promotions in health dept. challenged

Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court deferred the hearing of a plea alleging serious concerns over alleged arbitrariness and partisanship in the promotion process of the health department. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by K. Venkateshwar Reddy, pharmacist grade-II, currently serving in Hanamkonda, challenging the action of the director of public health and family welfare in relegating him to the lowest rank in the final seniority list, despite being originally placed at serial no. 2. The petitioner contended that the demotion was carried out without justification or due notice. According to the petitioner, his exclusion from promotion to pharmacist grade-I stood in stark contrast to the treatment extended to similarly placed colleagues ranked below him in the panel. By assigning him a lower rank and bypassing him for promotion, the authorities had exhibited what he described as a “blatant partisan attitude,” undermining both the morale of public healthcare workers and the transparency of promotion procedures within government services, counsel argued. The petitioner urged the court to direct the health department to forthwith consider his promotion, placing him on equal footing with others in the promotional list. He argued that the same ratio and logic applied to their advancement must be extended to him, restoring fairness and parity. The judge ordered the respondents to file their additional response and posted the matter for further hearing.

HC deprecates abuse of writ court

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court reiterated that litigants cannot abuse the writ jurisdiction by concealing facts and fabricating grounds merely to secure favourable orders. The judge observed that such conduct amounted to an abuse of process and undermined the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The judge dismissed a writ plea filed by R. Sravya challenging the actions of sub-registrars for not registering a proposed sale deed relating to a flat in Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The petitioner alleged that the registration authorities orally refused to register the property because the land was notified as Waqf property. The petitioner claimed ownership of a plot in Survey Nos. 47 Part and 48, Boduppal, and stated that despite approaching the sub-registrar, she was orally informed that registration would not be permitted in view of a Waqf gazette notification. She contended that the notification did not cover her property and had been set aside in earlier writ petitions affirmed by the Supreme Court. The judge not only rejected the plea but also criticised the misuse of the writ jurisdiction by misrepresenting facts to secure relief. The judge found that the petitioner never actually presented the sale deed for registration nor paid the required registration or stamp duty charges. The sub-registrar clarified that the petitioner had only made an oral enquiry and did not follow the mandatory procedure laid down under Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act which requires formal execution, payment and presentation of the document. The judge referred to the circular instructions issued by the inspector-general of registration and stamps, mandating sub-registrars to either register or issue a written refusal for any document formally presented, preferably within one week. It was made clear that no such document had been presented in this case, and hence, no refusal could be attributed to the registering authority.