The matter is scheduled to be heard on October 6 by a division bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Hyderabad:A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the state government’s decision through GO Ms. No. 9 dated September 26, enhancing reservations for the Backward Classes (BCs) community to 42 per cent in the local body elections. The petitioner, Vanga Gopal Reddy, contended that the move violated the 50 per cent ceiling on reservations prescribed by the apex court.
The matter is scheduled to be heard on October 6 by a division bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The petitioner submitted that together with the 15 per cent reservation for the Scheduled Castes and 10 per cent for the Scheduled Tribes communities, the total quota stood at 67 per cent, which exceeded the constitutional limit. It was argued that the decision contravenes Section 285A of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 which codifies the 50 per cent ceiling in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in ‘K. Krishna Murthy v. Union of India;.
Citing judgments in ‘Vikas Kishanrao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra’ and ‘Jaishri Lakshmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra’, the petitioner pointed out that the 50 per cent ceiling was inviolable except under exceptional circumstances, which he said were absent in this case. The plea stated that the enhancement of BC reservations was based on a one-man commission report that was neither made public nor debated in the Legislature, and did not satisfy the “triple test” laid down by the Supreme Court —requiring a dedicated commission, empirical data, and adherence to the 50 per cent overall limit.
Reddy contended that the government order was unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 243D, and 243T of the Constitution, as well as the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, and urged the court to quash the GO as violative of the rule of law.
Give fair chance,HC to mines dept
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court stated that though the assistant director of mines and geology (ADM&G) has authority to impose a heavy ten-fold penalty against unauthorised excavation or transportation of minerals, but due procedure must be followed including giving a fair opportunity to the alleged violators.
Stating this, Justice K. Lakshman set aside demand notices issued by the ADM&G, Warangal region, against 12 stone crushers and gravel excavators accused of illegally excavating and transporting gravel from patta as well as assigned patta land parcels in villages of the erstwhile Karimnagar district. The ADM&G had, through notices dated April 16 and May 25, 2024, directed all the 12 gravel excavators for payment normal seigniorage fee along with penalty totaling around `100 crore, including a ten-fold penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 (TGMMC Rules).
The court observed that the ADM&G failed to conduct a proper enquiry or provide the petitioners with a fair opportunity to defend their case before imposing the maximum penalty. It reiterated that while Rule 26(2) empowered the department to issue notices for unauthorised quarrying, such power must be exercised judiciously and with due process. The court held that arbitrary imposition of penalties without assigning reasons violated the principles of natural justice.
Referring to precedents, the court said that administrative authorities could not assume the role of adjudicators in determining culpability or imposing punitive measures. Consequently, the impugned demand notices were quashed. The court remanded the matter back to the ADM&G concerned for fresh consideration, in accordance with the law and the principles of natural justice.
Officials Pulled Up For Repeat Grabs
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court pulled up the Badangpet municipal town planning authorities for failing to prevent repeated encroachments on a 40-foot-wide public road in American Township, Balapur.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy, hearing a petition filed by the American Township Plot Owners’ Welfare Association, noted that despite prior demolition drives, the municipality allowed illegal occupants to reclaim the area. The judge remarked that such indifference amounted to dereliction of duty and warned that anyone obstructing public roads would face criminal proceedings.
The association had earlier moved the court after a basement was built illegally on the public road. Following court orders in June 2025, officials cleared the structure. However, residents complained that the encroachers soon returned, built a compound wall, and even placed a container, again blocking access. Repeated appeals to the municipality reportedly went unanswered, forcing residents to approach the court again.
