Telangana High Court Junks Challenge to Preventive Detention Order

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao dismissed a writ of habeas corpus filed by the wife of a detenu, Dharavath Dhansingh, under preventive detention under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The petition sought the immediate release of her husband, contending that the detention was arbitrary, violated the Constitution, and lacked proper justification. It was contended that the detenu was taken into custody by the district collector, Warangal, citing repeated involvement in the illegal manufacture and distribution of illicitly distilled (ID) liquor. Public prosecutor pointed out that multiple cases were registered against him under the Telangana Prohibition Act, and chemical analysis reports confirmed that the seized liquor was unfit for human consumption and hazardous to public health. The preventive detention order was subsequently confirmed by the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the detention order was excessive and based on ordinary law-and-order issues, not on grounds of public order disruption as required under the Act. It was contended that prosecution under criminal law was already underway, and hence, preventive detention was unjustified. The Court, however, disagreed. After reviewing the material on record and noting the recurring nature of the offences, the bench held that the detenu’s actions had a direct bearing on public safety and order. The Court observed that repeated violations involving the sale of toxic liquor warranted preventive detention, and the authorities were within their powers to act under the legislation meant to safeguard public interest.

Abrupt cancellation of dairy supply contract questioned

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court on Monday reserved a verdict in a plea challenging the allotment of government contracts for dairy supply to residential welfare institutions without public auction or tender. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Abhaya Agra Farms and Shri SNT Enterprises. The petitioners contended that the government, through a series of circulars and letters issued in March and June 2024, illegally granted contracts to Vijaya Dairy and other entities on a nomination basis. The primary grievance raised was that the petitioners, who previously were permitted to supply milk on the basis of a letter, were abruptly replaced by Vijaya Dairy without prior notice or justification. It was argued that even in the absence of a formal statutory provision, principles of natural justice require that any adverse administrative action must be preceded by a notice. The petitioners argued that the lack of transparency and the exclusion of other cooperative dairies from the process rendered the circulars and contract awards arbitrary and unconstitutional. The respondents, including the State and various welfare educational societies, defended the process by contending that the government retains the power to withdraw or assign contracts as deemed appropriate in the public interest. They argued that auction remains a valid and attractive method of contract award, especially where economic maximisation is involved, and that the process cannot be declared unconstitutional merely due to procedural shortcomings. In response, the petitioner raised multiple grievances questioning the nature of Vijaya Dairy’s operations specifically whether it functions as a state-owned cooperative or as a profit-oriented commercial entity. It was pointed out that the respondents failed to clarify whether Vijaya Dairy’s objective was to promote cooperative dairies and dairy farming in line with public welfare or to operate in a manner that suppresses other eligible dairy cooperatives for commercial gain. The petitioners further highlighted that no explanation was offered regarding the policy rationale behind the establishment of Vijaya Dairy or the grants it has received from the Ministry of Animal Husbandry. Whether such public funds were intended to support cooperative development or simply subsidise a single player in the market was left unaddressed, counsel argued. Justice Nanda, after hearing both sides, reserved the matter for final verdict.

TNGOs Housing Society challenge Cooperative Officer decision

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court will decide on a writ plea filed by three members of the TNGOs Cooperative Housing Society, challenging a memo issued by the district cooperative officer, Rangareddy, treating certain past meetings of the society's managing committee as null and void. The judge admitted a writ plea filed by L. Rakesh and two others. According to the petitioners, the memo under challenge directed the assistant registrar to declare all managing committee meetings conducted after the resignation of G. Srinivas Reddy on February 6, 2021, as null and void, solely on the basis that his name was recorded as being present in those meetings. The petitioners contended that the said memo not only nullifies the decisions of a duly elected managing committee but also suffers from arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of principles of natural justice. It was argued that no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioners before passing such adverse directions and that the proceedings were initiated merely based on the recorded attendance of a former member without examining the substance of the meetings. The petitioners contended that such actions adversely affect the administration of the society and were issued in excess of the powers under Section 79-A(e) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act. Justice T. Madhavi Devi directed the respondents to obtain instructions and posted the matter to Monday.

HC directs petitioner to approach authority under the Payment of Wages Act

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court reaffirmed the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when effective alternate remedies exist, especially when such remedy is provided by the law. The judge dismissed a writ plea filed by Christhu Jyothi Vidyalayam, a private unaided school in Mahbubnagar, challenging an order directing it to pay differential wages to a former employee. The petitioner sought to set aside the wage order passed by the lower court in 2021 and contended that the claim made by the respondent, who alleged employment as a watchman-cum-attender, was based on fabricated documents. The petitioner also pointed out that both the labour court and the criminal court earlier rejected the respondent’s claims in separate proceedings. The judge held that the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The judge concluded that none of the exceptions, such as violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction, was established in this case to justify bypassing the statutory appellate mechanism.