Telangana: HC Examines GO Restricting Maternity Leave for Third Child

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin on Tuesday took on file a writ plea challenging the validity of a government order (GO) restricting the grant of maternity leave to women government employees who have more than two surviving children.

The panel was dealing with a writ petition filed by Ms D. Anitha, a Secondary Grade Teacher working at MPPS Kalvala, Narwa Mandal, Narayanpet district. The petitioner contended that the GO issued on May 4, 2010, by the finance department, stipulating that maternity leave would be granted only to women with not more than two surviving children was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. It was contended that the Act ensures maternity protection even in respect of a third child and does not permit the state to curtail such benefits on the basis of number of children.

The petitioner further sought a direction to set aside the impugned condition and to sanction maternity leave for her third child along with all consequential benefits. It was argued that the impugned government order imposed an additional restriction not found in the central statute and thus was ultra vires and unconstitutional. Appearing for the state, the government pleader sought time to file a counter-affidavit. After hearing the submissions, the panel adjourned the matter, directing the respondents to place their response on record regarding the legality of the impugned condition and its consistency with the statutory maternity benefit framework.

Police not to harass hookah café

Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court directed the police of Chandrayangutta not to interfere with the lawful business of K. Prestigious Lounge and Coffee Shop. The judge directed authorities to abstain from any capricious or unwarranted interference while enforcing a stringent compliance regime.

The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Khaled Ahmed, who sought permission to continue serving flavoured hookahs in his café without unlawful obstruction. The petitioner alleged that respondent police authorities, without any legal authority, are interfering with his business of serving flavoured hookah. The judge observed that police authorities cannot impede a lawful enterprise in the absence of a clear statutory violation.

The judge noted that the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (COTP) Act does not prescribe a distinct licence for hookah service, yet the activity warrants heightened vigilance to prevent misuse. The judge referring to various rulings of the coordinate benches articulated a detailed compliance protocol including installation of CCTV cameras with 30-day footage retention, total prohibition on the entry and service of minors, restriction of operating hours up to 11 pm, and prominent display of statutory warnings. The judge also made clear that the establishment must also obtain all permissions mandated under the GHMC Act and the Hyderabad City Police Act, particularly in view of the use of charcoal and the classification of the premises as a “public place.” Justice Tukaramji, while allowing police authorities to conduct inspections for verifying adherence to the COTP Act and allied regulations, cautioned against any intrusive, disproportionate or arbitrary conduct.

The judge directed that the petitioner be permitted to continue operating the café and serving flavoured hookahs without hindrance, clarifying that any deviation would entitle authorities to initiate action strictly in accordance with law.

HC declines to stay forfeiture order

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict an order of forfeiture by Union Bank. The judge was dealing with a plea by an e-auction purchaser challenging action of Union Bank of India to forfeit 25 per cent deposit amount after the refusal to complete the sale of a mortgaged property. The judge observed that the dispute falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act and exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court was unwarranted. The petitioner, Datla Ravi Varma contended that he emerged as the highest bidder in e-auction for a plot of land in Budvel and consequently deposited the mandatory 25 per cent of the bid amount.

He further contended that he discovered that a civil suit concerning the property was pending and that an injunction order was passed after the auction. He sought refund of the amount paid and also questioned the legality of the mortgage executed by the guarantor’s power of attorney holder. Per contra, Union Bank argued that the sale was conducted strictly on an “as is where is” and “as is what is” basis, placing the responsibility on bidders to independently verify title and encumbrances.

The bank contended that no litigation was disclosed to it at the time of issuing the auction notice and that the injunction order came only after the auction concluded. It also pointed out that the petitioner earlier sought extensions due to delays in his Capital Gain Account and raised objections only later. The judge ruled that the SARFAESI Act is a self-contained code that provides an exclusive remedy before the DRT and noted that High Courts are expected to refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy is available. The judge also relied on several Supreme Court rulings stressing that borrowers and auction purchasers must first approach the DRT before seeking relief from the High Court.

HC curbs HYDRAA in 10 acre land row

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana Nigh Court directed HYDRAA to refrain from interfering with the property admeasuring about 10 acres at Guttala Begumpet. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by Y. Anthi Reddy and eight others.

The petitioners challenged the action of the HYDRAA in trying to illegally interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession without following due process of law. The petitioner contended that an Urban Land Ceiling endorsement dated May 7, 2010 reflects the regularisation of the petitioners’ open land measuring 37,412 square metres in Survey No.16 under a government order (GO) issued in July 2002. It was argued that despite the regularisation and possession, the authorities were trying to interfere with the land, claiming it to be government property.

The judge observed that prima facie, the petitioners appear to be the owners of the subject land based on the 2010 endorsement, and accordingly issued an interim direction restraining the authorities from causing any interference without following due process of law. The case is now posted to December 23.