Telangana HC Stays Bank’s Eviction Notice From Ancestral Home
Telangana High Court stayed the vacation notice with respect to an ancestral home situated at Gowlipura.
Hyderabad: A two-judge vacation bench of the Telangana High Court stayed the vacation notice with respect to an ancestral home situated at Gowlipura. The bench comprising Justice K. Sarath and Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao was dealing with a writ plea filed by Rohit S.R. Mane and Mohit S.R. Mane. The petitioners living in their ancestral house of grandfather are up against an order under the SARFAESI Act seeking to take possession of their ancestral property. Petitioners contend that the order to take possession under Section 14 of the Act which empowers the magistrate to take over a property in debt was made against a dead person. It was contended that the vacate notice issued pursuant to warrant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nampally, is illegal and in violation of the SARFAESI Act, the Constitution, and the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioner argued that, irrespective of the merits of the case, any order passed against a deceased person is a nullity in law and cannot be enforced. Counsel further argued that the Union Bank was aware of the fact that the principal debtor Rahul S.R. Mane was dead and the fact was brought to the notice of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The act of the bank in obtaining an order under Section 14 of the Act was a a misrepresentation of fact and is legally unsustainable.
HC dismisses plea on demolition
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, dismissed a writ plea challenging the proposed demolition of an unauthorised fifth floor of a building at Begumpet. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Cheguri Anitha Andalu, seeking a direction to restrain the GHMC from taking action against the fifth floor of her building. The petitioner claimed that her application for regularisation under the GHMC Act was still pending. However, Justice Vinod Kumar observed that the application submitted by the petitioner did not include a request for regularisation of the fifth floor in question. The judge held that the petitioner could not seek protection from enforcement merely on the basis of a pending application that did not even refer to the unauthorised construction. The judge further observed that the GHMC commissioner’s power to regularise constructions is limited to cases that comply with building norms and regulations. Since the fifth floor was constructed without permission and was in violation of building rules, it could not be regularised. The judge accordingly upheld the GHMC’s right to initiate and proceed with enforcement measures and dismissed the writ petition.
Fertility procedure for 49-yr-old cleared
Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board and other authorities to immediately allow a 49-year-old woman to undergo follicle retrieval and storage as part of her fertility treatment, despite statutory restrictions under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The interim order comes in response to a writ petition filed by Voleti Sri Lakshmi, challenging the authorities’ refusal to permit her treatment on the basis of Section 21(g) of the Act, which prohibits assisted reproductive procedures for women aged 50 and above. With her 50th birthday falling in the next two days, the petitioner approached the court citing extreme urgency. The petitioner contended that the respondents’ inaction including their failure to pass any order on her representation for over a month was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of her fundamental right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judge took a serious view of the delay, criticising the respondents for keeping the matter pending despite the time-sensitive nature of the request. She held that denying timely treatment, especially when the law had not yet barred her based on age, was unjust and unsustainable. The judge accordingly directed the respondents to facilitate the retrieval and preservation of the petitioner’s follicles without reference to Section 21(g), thereby enabling her to preserve her reproductive options before she crosses the statutory age threshold. The matter has been posted for further hearing on June 16.
