Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court deferred hearing of a writ plea challenging the state's decision to shift the Bodhan sub-jail operations to the District Jail at Nizamabad.
Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file two PILs challenging the Hyderabad Industrial Land Transformation Policy (HILTP), which permits conversion of nearly 9,300 acres of industrial land into multi-use zones in and around Hyderabad. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao was hearing PILs filed by Prof. K. Purushotham Reddy and Dr K.A. Paul, both assailing government order dated November 22. The petitioners questioned the policy as arbitrary and contrary to the Constitution, alleging that it allowed residential, commercial, institutional and IT development inside heavily polluting industrial parks such as Jeedimetla, Patancheru and Pashamylaram without any environmental or health impact assessment. It was contended that the 2013 GO envisaged shifting polluting industries outside the Outer Ring Road and barred multiple land use until such shifting, whereas the new policy enabled "co-existence" of industries with apartments, schools and hospitals. Senior counsel Vivek Reddy appearing for the professor sought quashing of the GO, suspension of its operation, and directions to the Union environment ministry and health ministry to conduct environmental impact and health hazard assessments before any large-scale residential or commercial development is permitted in the notified industrial parks. The petitioner also assailed the six-month "sunset clause", the lack of clear criteria for approving conversion applications, and the use of 30-50 per cent of SRO value as a one-time fee, terming it an under-valuation that benefits polluting units and encourages speculative real estate. In the connected PIL, Dr Paul challenged the same policy and sought its withdrawal. Appearing for the state, the Advocate General submitted that the GO was in line with the 2013 GO and that the broader objective remained to move polluting industries out of the area. He argued that apprehensions about future environmental and health impacts cannot be a ground to strike down a policy decision, and that land-use and industrial policies fell within the executive's domain. The panel directed the state to file its response to the PILs and posted the matter to December 29.
HC sets aside deletion of five voter names
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of Telangana High Court set aside the deletion of five women voters from the electoral rolls of Madanapuram, Chintapalli mandal, Nalgonda district. The judge was hearing writ petitions filed by former sarpanch Uduthala Akhila and four others challenging the action of the tahsildar-cum-election officer in deleting their names on the ground that they were married and allegedly residing at their matrimonial homes. The petitioners would contend that they continue to reside in Madanapuram and that their voter identity cards and other records reflect the same. It was contended that Akhila served as sarpanch from 2019 to 2024 and executed development works in the village, demonstrating continued residence. The State Election Commission, opposing the pleas, argued that the names were removed after an enquiry based on a complaint, and that the petitioners were found not to be "ordinarily resident". It was also argued that an appellate remedy under the Representation of People Act was available. The judge observed that marriage did not automatically sever a woman's residence or connection with her native village and held that deletion of names solely on the basis of marital status was arbitrary, particularly when the petitioners had not enrolled elsewhere. Considering the urgency in view of the upcoming local body elections and noting that the statutory remedy would not be efficacious in the present circumstances, the judge allowed the writ petitions and directed restoration of the petitioners' names to the rolls.
HC quashes GO on 2017 PG med fees
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court quashed a government order revising postgraduate medical and dental fees for the 2017-18 academic year and directed the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee (AFRC) to invite fresh proposals from colleges and refix the fees within three months. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Telangana Private Medical and Dental Colleges Management Association challenging the state's practice of fixing differential fee structures for postgraduate courses and seeking a uniform fee structure for all categories except NRI seats. The association argued that the state's division of seats into competent authority quota and management quota, each with separate fee structures, was unconstitutional and contrary to Supreme Court precedents. It contended that the government frequently issued fee-fixation GOs at the last minute, leaving no meaningful opportunity to challenge them. As an example, the petitioner cited the government order dated May 2, 2016, issued after counselling had already begun, contending that such delays compromised procedural fairness. The petitioner argued that unduly low fees would negatively impact the quality of medical education and public interest. The AFRC, in its response, traced the fee-regulation framework since 2004 and maintained that variations in fees naturally arise from differences in infrastructure, expenditure, staffing, location and hospital maintenance. It contended that it scrutinised audited accounts and recommended fees for the 2016-19 block period and noted that GO Ms No. 41, which had revised fees upward at the request of colleges was later quashed. The committee argued that the petitioner did not object when GO Ms. No. 41 was favourable to colleges and approached the court belatedly. After examining the constitutional scheme, Supreme Court rulings on fee regulation, and the requirements prohibiting profiteering and capitation fees, the judge considered whether uniform fees were necessary and whether the state and AFRC complied with mandatory procedure in issuing fee-related GOs. The judge held that the GO of 2016 was valid as it aligned with AFRC's recommendations. The court found that the GO of 2017 to be procedurally defective, noting that the AFRC did not comply with Rule 4 including issuing 30 days' notice, calling for proposals, and providing institutions an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the judge quashed GO Ms No. 25 of 2017 and directed the AFRC to undertake a fresh fee-fixation exercise, with the state government required to issue a new GO based on the committee's revised recommendations.
Plea challenges shifting of Bodhan sub-jail
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court deferred hearing of a writ plea challenging the state's decision to shift the Bodhan sub-jail operations to the District Jail at Nizamabad. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Venkateshwar Rao Desai, president of the Bodhan Advocates Bar Association. The petitioner contended that shifting the jail would cause inconvenience to advocates, sureties and litigants who would have to travel to Nizamabad for execution of surety papers and related processes. The petitioner contended that the decision affected access to justice and imposes unnecessary hardship on the local legal fraternity. Opposing the plea, the state submitted that the decision was taken due to urgent structural repairs required at the Bodhan facility. The state contended that the Bar Association lacked locus to challenge an administrative decision concerning prison administration and sought dismissal of the petition. When the petitioner pointed to practical difficulties in travelling for surety compliance, the judge observed that such issues could be addressed through Legal Services Authority mechanisms, including payment of honorarium for such work.
