The court, considering the petitioner’s submission to deposit the entire amount for securing release of the properties, directed the petitioner to avail of the efficacious statutory remedy available under the Act.
Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court held that challenges to property attachment orders issued under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act must ordinarily be pursued through the statutory remedies provided under the Act and under writ jurisdiction. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin disposed of a writ petition filed by Lodha Developers Limited challenging a government order dated March 2, 2021, whereby the state government attached two flats owned by the company in Park Tower, Worli, Mumbai, in connection with the crime registered against the respondents under the Defaulting Under Depositors Act, in proceedings initiated against the respondent and her husband. The petitioner company contended that the attachment proceedings were based on an incorrect assumption that the flats were sold to the respondent. He contended the proposed purchasers paid only 50 per cent of the sale consideration and no sale deeds had been executed, with ownership continuing to remain with the developer. The developer company came to know about the attachment only in March 2026. The panel observed that the impugned attachment was ordered under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, in connection with criminal proceedings, and that the statute itself provided a complete mechanism for adjudicating disputes relating to such attachments. The court, considering the petitioner’s submission to deposit the entire amount for securing release of the properties, directed the petitioner to avail of the efficacious statutory remedy available under the Act.
HC suspends HMDA’s e-auction of Hakeempet land
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court suspended an e-auction notification issued by the HMDA in respect of an 8.24-acre land parcel in Hakimpet of Shaikpet mandal. The interim order came to be passed in a batch of writ petitions filed by Saian Rai Jain and Saian Rai Dhariwal questioning the e-auction Notification dated May 20, 2026. The petitioners contended that the respondent authorities proceeded with the auction without first conducting a joint survey and proper demarcation of the subject land and the adjoining survey numbers. Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that despite making representations to fix the boundaries, the respondents authorities failed to take any action and continued with the auction process. Counsel further contended that such action would result in irreversible consequences and could create third-party rights.
Bangla Hindu man loses plea against look-out circular
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a look-out circular (LOC) issued against a Bangladeshi national, holding that no interference was warranted where the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution for allegedly fraudulently obtaining Indian identity documents and passports. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Mandal Abhinash, who challenged the issuance and continuation of the LOC contending that he was a Hindu migrant from Bangladesh who had entered India before December 31, 2014, and was entitled to protection under the Central government notifications issued in 2015. He submitted that the LOC unlawfully curtailed his right to travel and livelihood, particularly his business interests in the UAE, and sought quashing of the same. The Union of India and immigration authorities contended that the petitioner was a Bangladeshi national who earlier travelled to India on a Bangladeshi passport and was subsequently found to have fraudulently obtained Indian identity documents, including two Indian passports. They submitted that he was blacklisted by the Bureau of Immigration and was apprehended at the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport in 2024 while attempting to enter India using a fraudulently obtained Indian passport. They informed the court that a criminal case was registered and a chargesheet filed in the case. The court observed that the petitioner did not produce any material to show that he surrendered his Bangladeshi passport or acquired Indian citizenship in accordance with law before obtaining an Indian passport. In the absence of such evidence, the petitioner could not claim protection under the government notifications relating to minority migrants or seek to invalidate the LOC, the judge held.
Promotions under statewide seniority list under scrutiny
Promotions made to the post of senior analyst from a combined state-wide seniority list, despite the post being treated as multi-zonal, came under scrutiny before Justice K. Sharath of the Telangana High Court. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by K. Sulochana, junior analyst, challenging the proceedings issued on April 10, 2023, by which the authorities prepared a combined state-wide seniority list of junior analysts instead of maintaining separate seniority lists on zonal basis. The petitioner contended that pursuant to the government orders issued on August 4, 2021, the post of senior analyst was classified as a multi-zonal post and vacancies arising in a particular multi-zone ought to be filled from among eligible candidates belonging to that zone. According to the petitioner, promotions effected on the basis of the impugned state-wide seniority list denied promotional opportunities to eligible candidates in Multi Zone-I, including herself. She sought setting aside of the state-wide seniority list and a direction to the authorities to prepare zonal seniority lists and effect promotions accordingly. The petitioner claimed entitlement to promotion as the senior-most eligible candidate within the zone of consideration in Multi Zone-I. The respondents submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of senior analyst during the pendency of the writ petition. Justice Sharath granted six weeks to the respondents to file their response and posted the matter for further consideration.
