HC Upholds Differential User Charges for Hospitals
The panel was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by the Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association along with 434 others, who challenged the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board and a subsequent circular of June 2025, issued by the Telangana Pollution Control Board.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court upheld the validity of differential user charges imposed on healthcare facilities for bio-medical waste management. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, ruled that the classification between bed and non-bed healthcare facilities for the levy of such charges was constitutionally valid, as it is based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the objective of ensuring an efficient, sustainable, and environmentally compliant waste management system.
The panel was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by the Telangana Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association along with 434 others, who challenged the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board and a subsequent circular of June 2025, issued by the Telangana Pollution Control Board. The petitioners alleged discrimination between healthcare facilities with beds and those without, and sought uniform charges across all categories. Shyam S. Agarwal, counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the pricing structure was consistently followed for years and was formulated after extensive consultations with stakeholders, including the petitioners themselves. It was contended that the revised charges were introduced in line with statutory rules and guidelines, taking into account rising operational costs and inflation. Speaking for the panel, Justice Lakshman observed that the challenge mounted by the petitioners, in substance, sought substitution of the policy adopted by expert regulatory authorities with an alternative mechanism preferred by them. Such an exercise, the court held, was impermissible within the limited scope of judicial review, particularly in matters involving technical and policy considerations, unless the impugned action is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional which, in the present case, was not established. The court also took note of the respondents’ submissions that uniform pricing based on the weight of waste generated would be impractical and difficult to implement on a daily basis across numerous healthcare units.
HC faults infra in prisoner escape case
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao modified the punishment imposed on a police constable in a case involving the escape of two convicted prisoners, holding that lapses existed on both sides and that the petitioner alone could not be held solely responsible. Petitioner S. Pitcheswara Rao was assigned escort duty in April 2007 to take two convicted prisoners from Cherlapalli Jail to Osmania General Hospital, during which one of the prisoners pushed him and escaped. It was contended that disciplinary proceedings culminated in an order reducing his time scale of pay by three stages for three years and treating his suspension period from May 2007 to October 2008 as not on duty. The petitioner challenged the punishment before the AP Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the application in 2016. He then approached the High Court seeking to set aside both the order of Tribunal and the punishment proceedings. The state contended that the petitioner failed to follow escort protocol, including not handcuffing the prisoners and permitting use of a mobile phone, which led to their escape. Examining the record, the judge noted that the authorities did not provide adequate escort personnel or weapons and assigned the duty at a time when reaching the hospital before closure of outpatient services was not feasible. It held that such lapses on the part of the department could not be ignored. In view of these circumstances, the judge modified the punishment to reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year with effect on future increments, without affecting pensionary benefits, and disposed of the writ petition.
Award for Shamirpet police station under challenge
Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court ordered notice in a writ petition challenging the high ranking awarded to the Shamirpet police station in the “Ranking of Police Stations, 2025,” following allegations of serious irregularities and misrepresentation. The writ petition was filed by Lokahitha Society, representing residents and landowners of Bommarasipet and surrounding areas in Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The petitioner contended that the conferment of the 7th rank at the national level and the top rank within the state to the Shamirpet police station was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. It was submitted that the ranking exercise conducted under the aegis of the Union ministry of home affairs is intended to promote transparency, accountability, and citizen centric policing. The recognition granted to the police station was, according to the petitioner, contrary to its actual functioning, which was alleged to be marred by corruption, abuse of authority, and systemic inaction. It was contended that there had been repeated failures to register FIRs, compelling aggrieved parties to approach courts for relief. The petitioner alleged that investigations in several cases were either delayed or selectively conducted, with key accused persons being excluded. The court ordered notice to the respondents, including the Union, senior police officials, and others, calling upon them to respond to the allegations raised in the writ petition.
