Telangana HC Takes Serious View of Delay in Fee, Scholarship Payments

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concern over systemic delays in disbursements of scholarship and fee reimbursements by the state government, that have left thousands of students in financial limbo. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, was dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Association for Socio-Economic Empowerment of the Marginalised (ASEEM) and another.

The PIL was filed challenging the failure of state to release pending funds for students belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Backward Classes (BC), economically backward (EBC), minorities, and physically challenged communities. It was the case of the petitioner that the non-timely release of scholarships had created a cascading effect, leading private college managements to illegally withhold the original educational certificates of students as leverage for pending dues.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the actions of finance department was contrary to the government circular issued on February 23, 2024, which expressly prohibited institutions from retaining certificates awaiting reimbursement. He argued that students from minority and EBC communities were particularly vulnerable to this "unjust coercion," which hindered their ability to pursue higher education or employment.

The panel expressed strong displeasure over the lack of enforcement mechanisms to monitor issues relating to release of scholarships and withholding of certificates by private institutions. The panel sought clarification on steps put in place to monitor compliance with government circulars. The panel deprecated the lack of a systemic structure to protect innocent students who are affected by the actions of private institutions, who find no remedy but to knock the doors of justice. The panel directed the state to file its response and posted the matter for further hearing.

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the Registrar of Societies to ensure periodic elections to Jamiatul Quresh, a registered society with nearly 30,000 members, amid serious allegations of mismanagement.

The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Mohammed Ishaq Qureshi and others, who contended that no elections had been conducted since 1980, in blatant violation of the byelaws of society which mandate periodic elections. Owing to the prolonged absence of an elected body, the society was suffering from serious mismanagement, adversely affecting its administration, the petitioners contended. It was pointed out that the members of the society largely belong to the Quresh community, traditionally engaged in slaughtering-related occupations.

The petitioners argued that under the provisions of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, the Registrar was duty-bound to ensure that a proper list of elected executive body members was maintained and that statutory compliance was enforced. The continued failure of the respondent to discharge this obligation was termed arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners sought a direction to the Registrar of Societies to conduct a detailed inquiry into the affairs of the society and to take appropriate steps for conducting elections to the executive body and office-bearers of Jamiatul Quresh, to ensure effective and smooth management.

The plea urged that, if necessary, the society be cautioned with cancellation of registration for continued non-compliance with its bylaws. The Judge accordingly directed the respondent authority to conduct elections and posted the matter for further hearing.

The Telangana High Court ruled that continued incarceration would be unjustified in the absence of a chargesheet and granted bail to a postgraduate student accused in an NDPS case. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by a student pursuing postgraduation diploma in psychological counselling, who had been in judicial custody for 156 days.

The petitioner sought bail in connection with a case registered by the Panjagutta police station, Hyderabad. The prosecution alleged that the police had conducted a raid on August 25, 2025, and claimed seizure of narcotic and psychotropic substances, including MDMA, ecstasy pills, LSD blots, OG and ganja, allegedly from the possession of the petitioner. Based on the seizure, the case was registered under multiple provisions of the NDPS Act.

Challenging the allegations, counsel for the petitioner contended that the student, arrayed as Accused No.2, stood falsely implicated and remained behind bars despite the fact that the principal accused was yet to be apprehended. It was argued that although several months elapsed, the investigation did not culminate in the filing of a chargesheet, rendering continued incarceration of a young student punitive rather than preventive.

On the other hand, assistant public prosecutor argued that the alleged seizure involved commercial quantity. It was pointed out to the court that no criminal antecedents stood attributable to the petitioner and that no chargesheet stood filed till date. The judge observed that the petitioner had undergone substantial incarceration and that the material part of the investigation stood completed, with several prosecution witnesses examined. In these circumstances, the judge observed that further deprivation of liberty stood unwarranted.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court quizzed the Jangaon municipality over its practice of granting provisional building permissions through an online system while restraining construction for want of a work commencement certificate.

The writ petition was filed by Puligila Lalitha alleging illegal interference with construction of a residential building in SRPT Road, Jangaon, despite the issuance of provisional building permission. The petitioner contended that she incurred substantial expenditure towards construction and permissions and that the authorities neither rejected the application nor formally stopped the work.

Counsel for the municipality argued that building permissions were generated by a computer for convenience, and that construction could commence only after issuance of a separate work commencement order following post-verification. It was contended by the municipality that this system was brought in to ensure that citizens do not run from pillar to post for initial permissions. It was contended that in the absence of work commencement certificate, the applicant could not have started construction. Justice Shravan Kumar observed that the conditions imposed by the municipality appeared contradictory, as the applicant was required to commence construction within six months of permission, while the authorities claimed that construction could not begin without a commencement order.

The court questioned whether the mandatory verification of title and other details of the applicant who was granted provisional permission, which was required to be completed within 21 days, had been carried out or not. Recording that no rejection order had been passed as on date, the court observed that in the absence of rejection, the municipality could not restrain the petitioner from proceeding. The court directed maintenance of status quo and called upon the authorities to place on record the status of the application and whether any rejection order had been issued.