PIL for Failure to Install and Maintain Traffic Lights in Karimnagar District

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court sought responses from state and district authorities on a public interest plea alleging systemic lapses in the installation, maintenance, and enforcement of traffic signals in Karimnagar. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G. M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a letter addressed to Chief Justice on July 29, 2025, which has been treated as a Public Interest Litigation. It was complained in that letter that several traffic signals in the district were either improperly installed or inadequately maintained, with functional timers not being fixed at key junctions. It was further complained that authorities failed to impose penalties for signal violations, undermining enforcement and resulting in alleged wastage of public funds. A direction was sought to conduct a detailed enquiry into the installation and functioning of traffic lights in Karimnagar and to submit a comprehensive report addressing maintenance deficiencies, enforcement failures, and accountability for public expenditure. The panel granted three weeks' time for the respondents to obtain instructions and file their response.

Discom levy on pole charges quashed

Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court quashed a demand notice issued by the power distribution authorities seeking pole rent charges in excess of what was prescribed under the statutory framework. The judge allowed a writ plea filed by Jio Digital Fibre Private Limited, which challenged a notice demanding `50 per pole per month along with 18 per cent GST and directing the company to remove its telecom lines within 15 days in the event of non-payment. It was pointed out that under Section 11 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the state was obligated to grant permission for laying telecom network lines subject only to the amounts prescribed under the Act. As per the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, the service provider is liable to pay only `100 per pole per annum. It was argued that despite earlier interim orders passed in a connected writ petition, the respondents issued a fresh demand contrary to the statutory scheme. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out a judgment of the Kerala High Court holding that electricity authorities could not levy charges beyond those prescribed by law. Per contra, the state argued that excessive laying of wires was creating safety hazards and that the prescribed charges were insufficient to meet maintenance requirements. The court observed that the impugned notice was not in conformity with Rule 11(9) of the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules and was therefore unsustainable, and accordingly set aside the demand notice.

Plea alleges demolition of temple pillars

Justice Laxmi Narayan Alishetty of the Telangana High Court directed to maintain status quo over alleged demolition of pillars at Doodthari Mutt, popularly known as Sri Shivalayam Temple, situated in the Begum Bazaar of Hyderabad. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Rameshwar Mishra, seeking directions to the authorities, particularly the endowments department and other officials, to take immediate steps to safeguard the temple. The petitioner sought permission to perform puja and manage the day-to-day religious activities of the temple, with assistance from the Goshamahal police station house officer. The petitioner contended that the unofficial respondents were engaging in illegal activities by attempting to demolish portions of the temple, which is over 300 years old. Counsel for the unofficial respondents, however, contended that the construction activities were being carried out within their residential premises. The judge directed the respondents not to undertake any demolition or construction activities in respect of the temple and called upon them to file their response.

Petitioner challenges Bar Council listing

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition filed by a practising advocate challenging his classification as a "non-practising advocate" by the Bar Council of Telangana and the legality of the list published on its official website. The petitioner, R. Subramanian, challenged the action of the Bar Council in including his name in the "Non-Practising Advocates" list as on November 2025, purportedly under the Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. He contend that similar listings in July 2021, November 2023 and June 2024 were made without adherence to the prescribed procedure. The petitioner contended that the listing was effected arbitrarily and in violation of the Rules, besides being contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that branding a practising advocate as "non-practising" without issuing proper notice or affording an opportunity of hearing infringed his guaranteed fundamental rights.