Telangana legal briefs | Letter on animal cruelty treated as writ plea
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice G. Radha Rani, on Wednesday took on record a letter dated April 30, 2024, highlighting alleged lapses in the state’s enforcement of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2016. The letter contends that the government failed to safeguard livestock, which are reportedly being left to starve while being transported to slaughter, in direct violation of the constitutional provisions. During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state, requested additional time to present arguments. In response, the bench scheduled further proceedings for February 5, 2025.
Temple land being acquired for public reservoir questioned
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday admitted a writ petition seeking permission to acquire 80 acres of land in Madhanapuram Village, Chinthapally Mandal, for the construction of a public reservoir. The plea, filed by the revenue divisional officer of Chandur division, Nalgonda district, contends that the land is currently recorded in the name of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple and is essential for reservoir construction. Counsel representing the endowment department argued that any request for such acquisition must first be presented to the commissioner of the endowment department. After hearing both sides, the judge directed the government pleader for the respondents to obtain necessary instructions from the department. The matter was then adjourned for further hearing.
Fill up GMH posts immediately HC
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday granted the state government two weeks to address the acute staff shortage at the Government Maternity Hospital in Koti, Hyderabad. The panel, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice G. Radha Rani, was hearing a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) based on a news report titled “Nirlaksyapu Needana Amma Vedana.” Earlier, the High Court had appointed advocate commissioner Padmaja R.N. to inspect the hospital and submit a report on prevailing conditions. Her findings highlighted long waiting times of up to six or seven hours for patients to consult doctors, inadequate toilet and ventilation, unhygienic labour rooms, a shortage of seating, and the lack of a ventilator facility. It was also reported that the hospital struggles with insufficient parking space and poorly maintained ambulances. In response to the PIL, hospital superintendent M. Shailaja Prasad acknowledged the difficulties posed by overcrowding, noting that the facility operates with just two units and 160 beds while treating approximately 400 outpatients daily and conducting around 13,000 deliveries annually. Patients often arrive with attendants and children, further straining limited space. The hospital has undertaken initiatives such as constructing two new blocks with four floors each, procuring new cots and equipment, allotting a new ambulance, and conducting regular cleaning to maintain hygienic conditions. However, frequent power fluctuations and the absence of an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) continue to pose significant challenges.
During the hearing, the amicus curiae informed the court that two reports and a video had been submitted, highlighting the current condition of the hospital. Despite previous commitments, vacancies remained unfilled. The government pleader requested two additional weeks to complete recruitment, and the bench posted the matter for further hearing in February.
Bail for women in contraband drugs case
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court granted bail to two women Geeta Mandal and Geeta Rita Mistri, who were allegedly involved in the illegal buying and selling of contraband drugs. The women were charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, following an FIR filed by the Shameerpet Police.
According to the prosecution, the police seized a commercial quantity of the contraband from the accused. However, counsel for the petitioners contended that their clients were innocent and there was no corroborative evidence against them. It was argued that the petitioners were falsely implicated and that all material witnesses had already been examined, rendering further detention unnecessary. The defense also highlighted the undue hardship suffered by the petitioners’ families, as both women had been in judicial custody since December 2024.
On the other hand, the additional public prosecutor opposed the bail plea, citing the incomplete state of the investigation and the commercial nature of the contraband. After hearing both sides, Justice Sujana noted that the two women were implicated mainly for accompanying accused No.1, who was in actual possession of the seized substances, and observed that they had gone with him in search of suitable employment. Concluding that the petitioners had already spent a considerable period in custody, the court granted them conditional bail.
