Tobacco Related Trade Restriction Challenged

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court began hearing a writ plea challenging the validity of a notification issued by the commissioner of food safety, Telangana, restricting the trade and supply of certain tobacco-related products. The panel of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin is hearing a writ plea filed by Gajanand Enterprises, questioning the legality of the notification issued by the commissioner in May 2025. The petitioner contended that the impugned notification is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. It is the the petitioner’s case that the power to regulate the manufacture, sale, and distribution of tobacco products vests exclusively with the Central government under the Act, and that the state authorities, under the pretext of public health, cannot impose blanket restrictions inconsistent with the Central legislation. The petitioner further contended that the action of the authorities adversely affects the petitioner’s right to carry on lawful trade and business.

Consider case of displaced persons for employment: HC

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court directed the State government to reconsider employment applications filed by families displaced during the construction of the Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP), holding that their claims cannot be rejected merely for delay. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by Gosikonda Machendra Nath and others, seeking to set aside a government memo that rejected their job applications under the ‘Displaced Persons Quota’ on the ground that the time limit had expired. The petitioners, residents of various villages in Nizamabad district, lost their agricultural and residential properties when the government acquired their lands in 1971 for the SRSP. They contended that, despite losing their livelihoods, they were never provided employment as promised under a 1986 Government Order, which reserved 50 per cent of junior-level posts for displaced persons or their dependents. Each of the petitioners filed applications between 2016 and 2017, stating that no family member had secured a government job. However, their claims were turned down by the State Irrigation and Command Area Development Department on the ground that the deadline for submitting applications had expired long ago. The petitioners argued that several precedents previously held that the one-year time limit under the said Government Order does not apply to those displaced before its issuance in 1986. They cited earlier cases where courts had directed authorities to consider applications from pre-1986 displaced families without referring to time limits. The government maintained that the petitioners’ requests filed 46 years after displacement were “grossly belated” and invalid. Officials argued that later government memos issued in 2005 and 2010 reimposed strict cut-offs, warning that applications received decades after acquisition should not be entertained. After examining the record, Justice Bheemapaka held that the petitioners’ displacement in 1971 was undisputed and that they had consistently pursued their claims through various forums.

HC orders OU to decide BEd affiliation

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed Osmania University to consider the request of M.A.K. Azad College of Education, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy district, to grant affiliation to the BEd course with an intake of 100 seats for the academic year 2025–26. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Mohammed Rafiuddin Memorial Educational Society, M.A.K. Azad College of Education and others, challenging the inaction of Osmania University and the State Higher Education Department in failing to permit the institution to offer the BEd course despite having the necessary faculty, facilities, and infrastructure. The petitioners contended that the college, established in 2003 and granted approval by NCTE and government permission through a memo issued in June 2003, had its recognition restored by the NCTE Appellate Authority in 2020 and again in 2022 for an intake of 100 seats. Despite several representations in September 2025, seeking re-inspection and affiliation, but the university failed to act on the requests, prompting the present writ plea. Recording the submissions of both sides and noting that no orders had been passed on the petitioners’ representations, the judge directed Osmania University to inspect the college and take a decision on the affiliation request in accordance with law within 10 days.

Election bribe money case quashed

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against six accused who were booked for allegedly transporting Rs 2 crore in cash meant for distribution during elections. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Sampathi Shiva Kumar Reddy and five others. The case originated from an incident in November 2023, when police at Hayathnagar intercepted two cars allegedly carrying the cash from Hayathnagar to Choutuppal. The police registered a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. According to the prosecution, the accused confessed that the money was being transported on the instructions of another co-accused for election purposes. The police subsequently seized the cash, vehicles, and mobile phones and filed a charge sheet before the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar. The petitioners, however, contended that the case was untenable and that the alleged offences were not made out. They argued that the Criminal Procedure Code mandates that offences under IPC require a written complaint from a public servant, which was not done in this case. They also submitted that the police failed to prove that any money was actually distributed to voters, an essential element to constitute bribery under IPC. The judge, observing that there was no evidence showing that the accused were caught distributing money or bribing voters held that merely carrying cash does not attract offences under IPC or the Representation of the People Act. The judge further noted that registering a case under IPC without a proper complaint from a public servant was impermissible in law. Finding that the continuation of proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law, the judge allowed the criminal petition and quashed the case pending before the magistrate.