Street Vendors Move High Court Over Harassment

Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by three street vendors challenging alleged harassment and threats by state authorities at their vending site near the Telangana Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC), Madhapur. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Raganimoni Ramesh Kumar and two others. The petitioners contended that despite conducting lawful street vending at the location, TGIIC and police authorities had been regularly interfering with their business without following due process. The petitioners contended that the respondent authorities had been harassing and threatening them with eviction, even though their rights were protected under the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, which mandates survey, regulation and issuance of vending certificates. The petitioners contended that no town vending committee has been constituted for the area and that they are being denied their right to livelihood without any opportunity of hearing. Counsel for GHMC and the assistant government pleader for home sought time to obtain instructions. The judge posted the matter for further hearing.

HC stays police seniority order

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice P. Sam Koshy stayed operation of an order of a single judge with regard to seniority of special police recruited in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh. The panel was dealing with two appeals filed by K. Chandra Shekar Goud and others. The controversy related to a seniority list of special police recruited for “sending to the prohibition and excise department.” On regularisation in the department, the question arose as to the basis on which their seniority would be fixed. A single judge reasoned that since the recruitment was not for the excise department, age must be the deciding factor. Faulting the stance, the appellants pointed out that in an earlier round of litigation, the commissioner of excise was directed to exercise the parameters, and in the exercise of such power, it was rightly decided that merit must be the criterion of seniority. The effect of the order of the single judge affected the already prepared “merit seniority list” and was stayed by the panel.

Human trafficking accused gets bail

Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court granted bail to a 29-year-old businessman from Porbandar, Gujarat, accused of trafficking a youth to Thailand under the pretext of employment. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Hitesh Arjan Somaiya, who sought regular bail. According to the prosecution, the petitioner and another accused allegedly lured the complainant’s son with an online job offer in Thailand as a computer operator with a promised salary of Rs 70,000. Upon arrival, the victim was allegedly forced into fraudulent cyber activities and was subsequently detained illegally. A case was registered following a complaint in May 2025. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused was falsely implicated and that mandatory procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were violated. It was argued that the petitioner was arrested by Gujarat Police at Gujarat Bhavan, Delhi, on May 21 and flown directly to Hyderabad without being produced before a local magistrate within 24 hours, thereby violating the provisions of BNSS. He argued that the petitioner was in custody for over 60 days, and the investigation was substantially complete. Justice Sreenivas Rao observed that the petitioner was arrested on May 21, 2025, at Gujarat Bhavan, Delhi, but was not produced before the concerned judicial magistrate as mandated under the provisions of BNSS. The judge further noted that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Karimnagar on May 22, and that even the prosecution admitted that 10 witnesses were already examined, and a major part of the investigation was complete. Accordingly, the judge deemed it a fit to enlarge the petitioner on conditional bail.

Alliance Air told to pay Rs 12.8 lakh

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court disposed of a plea directing Alliance Air Aviation Ltd. (a subsidiary of Air India) to consider the claim of 32 passengers and pay Rs 12.8 lakh along with 12 per cent annual interest as ordered by the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum within three weeks. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Shyam Sundar Lahoti and 31 others. It was the case of writ petitioners that they approached the consumer forum for the deficiency of service by Alliance Air. It was alleged that their flight to Mysore, scheduled on June 2, 2022, was cancelled, which resulted in a change of plans for vacation and hotel cancellation apart from the return journey. The forum directed Alliance Air to pay Rs 12,80,000 along with 12 per cent interest from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioners alleged that despite being formally notified of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II via a notice issued on September 20, 2024, Alliance Air neglected to pay the outstanding amount. The petitioners contended that the order of forum had attained finality and no appeal was preferred by Alliance Air. Counsel pointed out to the court that representations addressed to Alliance Air were in vain and as they are performing public duty, they ought to have disposed of the representation.