A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Friday refused to stay the state films awards function scheduled for June 14.
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Friday refused to stay the state films awards function scheduled for June 14. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a writ plea filed by Pandari Ande and two others, working in the film industry. The petitioners questioned the validity of the selection process adopted for the Gaddar Telangana Film Awards (GTFA), alleging that two jury committees were constituted under Rule 9(a) of the GTFA Regulations and that several members involved in the jury had direct interests in some of the award-winning films. The petitioners alleged that awards were granted without screening the films produced during the relevant period of June 2, 2014, to December 31, 2023, and that more awards were given than prescribed under the Regulations. It was contended that such actions were arbitrary, illegal and violative of the GTFA Regulations. The petitioners sought a direction restraining the authorities from presenting the awards on June 14, pending the writ petition. This was declined by the panel. Speaking for the panel, Justice Sam Koshy questioned the petitioners’ delay in approaching the court and refused to interfere at this stage. The panel ordered notice to the respondents and posted the matter after two weeks. A similar writ plea came up before a single bench of the Telangana High Court on the same day. When the filing of a similar writ petition was brought to the notice of the single judge, Justice K. Lakshman refused to interfere in the writ plea before him and directed it to be listed along with the connected matter.
No multiple societies for integrated project
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court set aside the registration of the Saket Bhu Sattva Phase-I Villa Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd as the same was carried out without following the procedure prescribed by law and without the involvement of the project’s promoter. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by A. Srinivasa Reddy and three others, including the project promoter and villa residents of Phases I and IV. The dispute revolved around the formation of a society exclusively by Phase-I villa owners, excluding other phases of the integrated gated community project located in Medchal-Malkajgiri district. The petitioners contended that the project was approved as a four-phase integrated development with shared amenities and uniform infrastructure. They argued that the registration of society only for Phase-I residents violated the integrated nature of the project and deprived residents of other phases of their rightful access to common facilities such as clubhouses, water supply systems and sewage treatment plants. The respondents claimed exclusive rights over these amenities, which, according to the petitioners, disrupted the unified management structure of the township. The judge observed that under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, (RERA) and the Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, the promoter must initiate the process of society registration after completion of the project. The judge further held that no society could be registered without issuing public notice and providing an opportunity for objections. Referring to the absence of verification reports and procedural compliance by the district cooperative officer, the judge concluded that the registration was granted in an arbitrary manner. The judge remarked that allowing multiple societies in a single integrated project would result in disharmony and multiplicity of proceedings. The judge accordingly set aside the registration and directed the registrar to invite objections and conduct a detailed verification, including an assessment of whether Phase-I amenities were exclusively meant for that phase, before granting any fresh registration.
Case on Durgam Cheruvu encroachment
Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court directed the GHMC to examine the alleged encroachment of land earmarked for public amenities and to take appropriate action against private parties accused of illegal construction near Durgam Cheruvu. The judge disposed of a writ petition filed by the Amar Society Plot Owners Welfare Association and instructed GHMC officials to consider and resolve the petitioners’ representations in accordance with principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The dispute concerns a 1,334-square-yard plot, which stood allegedly reserved for communal amenities in the approved layout of the Amar Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioners contended that the plot was wrongfully shown as Plots No. 140 and 141 and sold to unofficial respondents, who later constructed a compound wall and claimed transferable development rights (TDR) from the GHMC. According to the petitioners, the land formed part of the designated amenity space and could not be privately owned. GHMC issued multiple notices regarding the unauthorised construction, stating that the site fell within the full tank level limits of Durgam Cheruvu, making it ineligible for development under the applicable Government Order. The unofficial respondents relied on registered sale and gift deeds to assert ownership, maintaining that the plots did not form part of the open space mandated by municipal regulations. They further argued that 11.65 per cent of the layout area stood allocated for park space, which exceeded the required limit. The judge refrained from giving a conclusive ruling on the issue of ownership, observing that such factual disputes could not be settled under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judge directed the GHMC deputy commissioner to assess the issue under the provisions of the Urban Areas Development Act, relevant municipal rules, and the recommendations of a government-appointed five-member committee on the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu. The judge emphasised that the nature of the land as part of the lake’s FTL and as an amenity space must be carefully examined before initiating any enforcement action.
Man held in prostitution case gets bail
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court granted bail to Pajjuri Venkatesh, a 28-year-old man who was arrested for allegedly operating a prostitution racket under the guise of a spa in Ameerpet, Hyderabad. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had allegedly converted the premises into a site for immoral activities by arranging customers through calls and WhatsApp. A raid conducted on April 15, 2025, led to the arrest of the petitioner, nine alleged sex workers and four customers. The police reportedly seized a swiping machine and electronic devices from the premises. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record and continued to be in judicial custody since his arrest. It was also contended that the petitioner was the sole breadwinner of his family and that his wife was pregnant. Counsel stated that the petitioner would cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by the court. The judge noted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, custodial interrogation was no longer required and 18 witnesses were already examined. Considering the overall facts, the judge enlarged the petitioner on conditional bail.
