Telangana HC: LOC Against Cancer Research Scientist Kept In Abeyance
Upon learning of the registration of the FIR, he approached the High Court and obtained anticipatory bail

Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court kept in abeyance Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against a cancer research scientist on an after assurance to Court that he would cooperate with the ongoing investigation. The Judge is hearing a writ petition filed by Dr Siva Kumar Sangarappan S Sivalalar, the scientist who challenged the Look Out Circular in connection with FIR registered by EOW Team-VII, CCS, DD, Hyderabad. The petitioner sought a declaration that the action of the authorities in opening the LOC and restraining his international travel was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and sought for the circular be cancelled. According to the petitioner, he was arrayed as an accused in a case arising out of disputes relating to the corporate equity shareholding of a company in which he was an equity shareholder. Upon learning of the registration of the FIR, he approached the High Court and obtained anticipatory bail. It was argued that continuation of the LOC was unnecessary in view of the protection already granted by the Court and the undertaking.
Telangana HC Refuses Interim Protection To Ameenpur Convention Hall Against Acquisition
Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday refused to grant interim protection in a writ petition challenging the action of the land acquisition authorities in undertaking a demarcation exercise affecting a convention hall situated in Ameenpur. The challenge is on the ground that the impugned action is without issuing any prior notice or undertaking the statutory publication process. The Judge is dealing with a writ petition instituted by Kandukuri Jagadeeswara Rao, assailing the action of the authorities in allegedly earmarking a portion of his convention hall premises for acquisition without adhering to the procedure contemplated under law. It was also argued that the process was in the absence of any newspaper publication or public notification. The petitioner alleged that such action was ex facie arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the statutory safeguards governing land acquisition proceedings. Counsel further submitted that the convention hall constituted sole means of sustenance of petitioner and expressed a bona fide apprehension that coercive action, including demolition of the structure, may be undertaken over the weekend unless the Court intervened. Having regard to the said statutory position, the Court was not inclined to grant immediate interim protection. The Court directed the authorities to obtain instructions and posted the case for further consideration on Monday.
Stay On Promotions Under Amended Telangana Govt. Life Insurance Declined
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court declined to stay promotions proposed under the amended Telangana Government Life Insurance State Service Rules, 2025, while examining a challenge to the validity of the amended eligibility criteria. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin is hearing a writ plea filed by D. Anjaneyulu and five others, who are serving as Superintendents in the Directorate of Insurance. The petitioners challenged Rule 6(2)(1) of the Telangana Government Life Insurance State Service Rules as amended in 2025. It is the case of the petitioners that the amended rule prescribes a degree qualification along with three years of experience in the supervisory cadre for promotion, which is contrary to the parent rules and in violation of Articles of the Constitution. The panel observed that there are candidates who remain eligible for promotion even under the amended framework and, therefore, no immediate case was made out for stalling the promotional process. The panel made it clear that any promotions, if effected during the pendency of the writ plea, would remain subject to the final outcome of the case and observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies if they are individually aggrieved by any promotion orders.

