Telangana High Court Clarifies 24-hour Custody Rule

Hyderabad:Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court reiterated that an accused who is under police custody for a period of more than 24 hours from the time he was apprehended to subsequent production before the magistrate rendered the custody illegal. The judge set aside a remand of a teenager accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Pocso Act. The judge was hearing a criminal revision case challenging a remand order. It was the case of the petitioner that he was apprehended at 4 pm on November 18 but was produced before the magistrate only at 5 pm on November 19, beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 59(2) of the BNSS. Counsel for the petitioner Pujari Mani Sahith argued that any detention beyond 24 hours without judicial sanction constituted illegal custody and violated Article 21 of the Constitution. He argued that the petitioner was a minor aged 17 years, but the magistrate had mechanically treated him as a major based on the remand case diary showing his age as “19/20”. He pointed out that being a juvenile, he ought to have been produced before the Juvenile Justice Board under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and not sent to regular judicial custody. The judge observed that the remand order suffered from procedural irregularity as the magistrate failed to examine the legality of custody before authorising remand. The judge held that the delay in production vitiated the remand and accordingly set aside the remand order, and directed the release of petitioner on a personal bond. The court directed the magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act to determine the age of the petitioner and proceed accordingly, preferably within eight weeks from the receipt of the order.

HC slams land acquisition officer

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy came down heavily on the land acquisition officer (LAO) for “substantially undervaluing” fertile, irrigated land acquired for the construction of a check dam. The panel was dealing with a land acquisition appeal suit filed by Rondla Ranga Nayaki and two others, who sought just and proportionate enhancement of compensation. The panel observed that the acquired land was a rich, irrigated agricultural tract with proven commercial crop-yielding capacity, and strategically situated near the Hyderabad-Warangal national highway, a factor that, the panel noted, “materially enhances the intrinsic and locational value of the property.” The panel held that these attributes were not mere peripheral considerations but mandatory determinants under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Invoking comparative valuation jurisprudence, the panel placed considerable reliance on a certified sale deed from adjacent Nashkal village, which reflected a substantially higher market value. The panel cited its own earlier rulings involving acquisition for the very same check dam project, where similarly situated land had been valued at `1 lakh per acre. These precedents, the panel held, established a compensatory parity doctrine, mandating that landowners in identical situational matrices must not be subjected to disparate compensation regimes. Speaking for the panel, Justice K. Lakshman criticised the reference court for adopting a “narrow, truncated, and legally unsustainable approach,” observing that it had failed to give due weight to cogent documentary evidence clearly demonstratingmarket rates far above the figure adopted by the LAO. Reiterating that uniformity, equity, and doctrinal consistency are indispensable principles in land valuation, the panel held that compensation must reflect actual market dynamics, not administrative conjecture.

Tender for hospital maintenance spiked

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside the e-tender awarded to a private agency for providing integrated hospital facility management services at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. The judge found the successful bidder ineligible at the technical stage. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by S.S. Consultancy, which contended that the tendering authorities ignored mandatory conditions. The judge found that the unofficial respondent failed to submit the required pest control applicator licence under Rule 10(3A) of the Insecticide Rules, which was essential for fumigation and pest-control activities in hospitals. Instead, the bidder submitted a Rule 10(4) licence, which only permits sale or stocking of insecticides and was not valid for operational pest control. The judge held that this defect rendered the bid ‘non est’ and incapable of consideration. The judge held that tender conditions were sacrosanct, and deviation from them amounted to arbitrariness and violation of the Constitution. The judge rejected the authorities’ reliance on the bidder’s higher turnover, noting that it becomes relevant only after technical qualification. The judge directed the authorities to consider the bid of the petitioner for award of the contract if it is otherwise eligible.

HC to hear plea on structure in Metro Rail route

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging alterations in two gazette notifications and seeking protection of Aliabad Sarai, a heritage structure. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Mohd Omer who sought a direction to correct Gazette No.s 35 dated November 28, 2024, and 47 dated December 7, 2024, alleging that they were issued without verifying ownership records with the Telangana Waqf Board. The petitioner sought a direction to safeguard Aliabad Sarai listed at Sl. No. 10 under a government order of March 1998 and to halt demolition or acquisition for Metro Rail Phase-II until a heritage impact assessment was conducted and statutory approvals obtained under the Telangana Heritage Act and the AMASR Act. The additional advocate general submitted that in a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning heritage structures in the Charminar–Falaknuma precinct, the state undertook not to disturb any declared archaeological structure. He added that the grievance regarding Aliabad Sarai would be examined and that any acquisition, if required, would proceed after following due legal process, including de-notification under applicable laws. Recording the submission, Justice Vijaysen Reddy directed that the matter be posted along with the PIL, subject to administrative orders of the Chief Justice.