Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the state to file a compliance report with regard to the setting up of sewerage treatment plants (STPs) in Chitkul tank at Patancheru. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, was dealing with a news item published in an English newspaper, as a PIL. The news item stated that much to the distress of locals and fishermen nearly 10 tonnes of fish were found floating in the tank from the discharge of industrial effluents in the water body. Fishermen estimated the cost of the dead fish at over rupees one crore. More than 100 fishermen families in Chitkul village depend on this tank for their livelihood. Another fisherman said that recently eight lakh fish fingerlings were released into Chitkul tank for cultivation. To do it again, they will need another 20 lakh fingerlings and the culture season will be over by the time these fish are ready for fishing. The additional advocate general informed the court that there were heavy rains on June 23 and huge quantities of rainwater went to Peddacheruvu in Chitkul village. This resulted in depletion of oxygen levels and an increase in ammonia levels in the water body. It was pointed out that Tilapia variety of fish, which is a prolific breeder and is commercially viable also, could not survive. It was also submitted by the AAG that an adequate number of STPs will be constructed within four months to ensure that the sewerage water is not released in the aforesaid water body. The fisheries department will ensure that the fish are harvested periodically. The judge accordingly directed compliance report to be filed before the next date of hearingReconsider student’s request for re-evaluation: HC directs NBEMSJustice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to consider an application afresh for re-evaluation of the answer sheets of a doctor pursuing super-specialty in cardiology at a medical college under the management of Apollo group. The judge stated that limited parameters of the courts discretionary jurisdiction but required reconsideration in the peculiar facts of the case. The judge made the order in a writ plea filed by Mohammed Ateeq Ur Rahman. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of the semesters, the petitioner appeared for the theory examination conducted by the respondents, who through mail had intimated that he had failed in the theory examination having secured only 143 marks. Subsequently, the petitioner made a request to the respondents for re-evaluation. He contended that three expert doctors evaluated his answer sheets and had awarded 176, 182 and 172, respectively. It is stated that in response to the petitioner’s request for re-evaluation of the answer sheets, he received a communication from the additional director, NBEMS wherein he was informed that his request for re-evaluation of already assessed answers is not permissible as per rules. It was pointed out to the court by the respondent that the provision provides for re-evaluation of un-assessed answers only, in a rare event of an answer(s) being wrongly marked as not attempted by the assessor. Moreover, the request for re-evaluation of an un-assessed answer sheet can be made within 45 calendar days of the declaration of theory results and said that the clause further clarifies that there shall be no re-evaluation of already assessed answers. It was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the average mark given by the examiner is 530 and 5/3 is equal to 176.8 marks, but the earlier examiner gave only 143 marks, the difference between the marks awarded by the examiners and the examiner appointed by NBEMS is more than 33 marks. The petitioner contended that it is appropriate on the part of the respondents to conduct re-evaluation by other examiners and declare the result afresh or review the earlier result of the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the judge said that a bare perusal of the relevant guidelines indicate that the answer sheets of the petitioner have no un-assessed question and all the 10 questions in all the three papers of DNB cardiology had been evaluated by the assessors. All the answers of the petitioner had been assessed and marks were awarded for all the questions and no question has been marked as “not attempted” by the assessors. Accordingly, this court opines that as per clause 6.6 there is a restriction in so far as the grant of relief as prayed for by the petitioner as per the rules in force, since clause 6.6 clarifies that there shall be no re-evaluation of already assessed answers. Justice Nanda relying on a catena of judgements ruled that the principle of law that emerges is that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but for other purposes as well. The judge accordingly directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner as an exceptional case, which, however, shall not be a precedent and pass appropriate orders within a week thereafter. Institutions denied nod to start new courses challenge THED orderJustice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by St Peters Education Trust, Auroras Technological Academy and other institutions challenging the action of the Telangana Higher Education Department (THED) in not permitting them to commence courses despite having received necessary approvals and sanctions from AICTE and the Osmania University. The petitioners alleged that the respondent was not permitting the commencement of the petitioner institutions as self-financing institutions offering the several courses for the academic year 2024-25. The petitioners further alleged that despite the necessary sanctions and approvals from the concerned authorities, the respondent department was not granting approval to them. After hearing the petitioner, the judge directed THED to pass appropriate orders in the matters of the petitioners.
Source link
