Hyderabad Court Rejects Petition Naming Meenakshi Natarajan as Respondent

The petition is understood to have led to the rejection of Natarajan's nomination papers for the Rajya Sabha election in Madhya Pradesh as she failed to mention the matter.

The petition was filed by Bandaru Srilatha, a Congress leader, who alleged that party functionary Kumbham Shivakumar Reddy had subjected her to physical harassment and posed a threat to her life. Srilatha had earlier lodged a police complaint, following which an FIR was registered against Shivakumar Reddy at the Panjagutta police station on May 7, 2022.

Apart from the police case, Srilatha also filed a private complaint before the Nampally court in the year 2025. In her petition, she named Natarajan, Congress’ Telangana affairs in-charge, minister Vakiti Srihari, MLA Chittem Parnika Reddy, and state Congress president Mahesh Kumar Goud as respondents.

During the hearing, Natarajan’s counsel argued that the petition was not maintainable before the magistrate court because some of the respondents were public representatives and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of designated special court which deals with criminal cases against public representatives. After hearing both sides, the court agreed that it did not possess the authority to adjudicate such matters and returned the petition to the petitioner.

In her complaint, Srilatha alleged that despite the criminal case registered against Shivakumar Reddy, no action had been taken against him by the Congress leadership. She claimed that her case was not being allowed to proceed because the accused belonged to an influential political and social background, while she was a woman from a Backward Class (BC) community.

The petitioner alleged that she had suffered social humiliation, faced false accusations, and was being prevented from speaking openly about her grievances. She sought legal action against the accused, requested compensation of ₹10 crore.

HYDRAA Fined ₹50,000 by Telangana High Court for Violating Final Opportunity on Land Dispute

Taking serious exception to the failure in filing counters in a batch of petitions relating to intervention in the affairs of a property in Yousufguda here, the Telangana High Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the HYDRAA commissioner.

The court directed the commissioner to deposit the costs into the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund and clarified that the High Court Registry shall accept the counter affidavit only after proof of payment of the costs is produced.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was dealing with a batch of writ petitions concerning two acres of land in Survey No. 45 at Vengal Raonagar, Yousufguda. The petitioners alleged that despite earlier court orders directing maintenance of status quo, HYDRAA officials, aided by police personnel, had entered the land parcel, demolished a compound wall, and erected barbed fencing and signboards claiming that the property belonged to an integrated housing scheme of the Housing Board.

The court noted that on April 8, it had granted HYDRAA a final opportunity to file a counter affidavit and warned that the agency’s commissioner would be required to personally explain the delay if the affidavit was not filed. No valid counter affidavit was placed on record. Though HYDRAA's counsel informed the court that a counter had been filed, it was found to have been returned at the scrutiny stage.

The petitioners contended that they were placed in possession of the land pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court and had been enjoying peaceful possession since 2008. They argued that the authorities were acting in violation of status quo orders passed earlier by the High Court.

Telangana HC Dismisses Agri, Veterinary Varsity Professors' Plea for Retirement Age Hike to 65

The Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by professors and associate professors of the Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University (PJTSAU) and P.V. Narsimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University (PVNRTVU), seeking continuation in service up to 65 years of age on par with teachers working in other state universities.

Justice K. Sarath held that the enhancement of the retirement age was a matter of government policy and could not be extended by judicial intervention. The court observed that GO Ms No. 3, dated January 28, 2025, issued by the higher education department, specifically applied to teaching faculty drawing UGC scales in universities functioning under the administrative control of the higher education department. Since the agricultural and veterinary universities are governed by the agriculture and cooperation department and the animal husbandry department, respectively, the benefit could not be claimed as a matter of right.

The petitioners argued that they were receiving UGC pay scales and performing duties similar to faculty members in state universities, where the retirement age had been enhanced to 65 years. They contended that excluding them from the benefit amounted to discrimination.

The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments holding that the age of superannuation was a policy decision falling exclusively within the executive domain. The court noted that the state government had expressly clarified through letters issued in November and December 2025 that the benefit of GO No. 3 did not apply to the agricultural and veterinary universities.

Justice Sarath observed that parity in pay scales or similarity in duties could not automatically entitle employees to identical service conditions, including retirement age. The court emphasized that each institution is governed by its own statutory framework and service rules.