Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the auction of land parcel in Kancha Gachibowli, Rangareddy district. Justice K. Lakshman was dealing with writ petitions filed by Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, alleging that the HMDA had illegally included a 30-foot-wide access road in the auctioned land, thereby obstructing entry to their plots. HMDA contended that the auctioned land was government property and did not include any public road. The petitioners argued that their properties were situated in Survey Nos. 124 and 125 and had legally recognised access roads. The judge ruled that the dispute involved complex factual issues related to land identification and ownership, which could not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judge observed that the petitioners should seek recourse through a civil court rather than invoking writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the judge noted procedural lapses in the petitions and held that arguments regarding the delayed payment of the auction bid amount by the successful bidder were outside the scope of the writ proceedings.School pulled up over admissionThe Telangana High Court strongly criticised a government pre-primary school in Stalinnagar, Miyapur, for denying admission to children with special needs (CwSN), despite clear directives from the education authorities. Justice T. Vinod Kumar took on file a writ petition filed by the parents of Suraneni Abhinav and 21 children with special needs. The petitioners sought enforcement of right to inclusive education under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act and the Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act. The petitioners argued that the school was legally bound to admit their children under proceedings issued by the commissioner of school Education in December 2023. Government counsel informed the judge that the school had agreed to admit the children, but the judge pointed out that the headmaster was not “doing any favour.” The judge further noted that the principal secretary for school education should have initiated disciplinary action against the headmaster. The judge also cited a Supreme Court order from July 2022 in which the Telangana government assured that 507 teachers with Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) qualifications had been promoted and that appointments for vacant positions were underway to ensure inclusive education. The judge observed that the headmaster of the Government Pre-Primary School, Yellaiah, acted in violation of state policy and Supreme Court orders by initially refusing admission and later claiming that he had “no objection.” The judge questioned why, despite such assurances, the school had failed to implement the policy for over a year. The judge directed the state education authorities to take immediate corrective measures and sought a report on the action taken against the headmaster. The matter is posted for further adjudication.HC hears cases on Bar Council pollsTwo intriguing legal battles relating to elections at the Bar Council of Telangana and various bar associations in the state were heard by Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court. The Labour Court Bar Association at Hyderabad and various other bar associations moved the High Court, challenging the action of the State Bar Council in requiring the bar associations in the state to conduct elections on or before March 31 and hand over charge to the newly elected executive body. A similar writ petition was filed by the Rangareddy Bar Association and 24 other bar associations. In total, 30 bar associations questioned the directive. Senior counsel Ravinder Reddy pointed out that the directions were issued in furtherance of the model bye-laws. He argued that the bar associations were independent entities and not under the control of the State Bar Council or the Bar Council of India. He contended that the model bye-laws or guidelines could not take away the power of bar associations registered under the Societies Registration Act concerning the conduct of elections and settlement of election disputes. The judge observed that, on one hand, the Bar Council, a statutory body responsible for the enrollment of lawyers, their professional discipline, and honour, while on the other hand were 30 associations, which represent district bars managing the day-to-day affairs of advocates. It was noted that some associations had unanimously passed resolutions to extend the term of their committees. In effect, all the bar associations (110 in total) had collectively decided that the term of office shall be two years. Senior counsel Ashok Anand Kumar, appearing for the Bar Council, pointed out that the bar associations were required to comply with statutory requirements; otherwise, the advocates of such associations might be disqualified from availing the benefits of the welfare fund. Due to paucity of time, Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy adjourned the matter to Thursday for further hearing.Advocate moves HC over Bar council pollsJustice B. Vijaysen Reddy is hearing a contempt case filed by Kokula Ashok, a practicing advocate. The advocate had earlier filed a writ petition complaining that the Bar Council had failed to conduct its in-house elections despite the expiration of its members’ tenure. The court, on January 10, had directed the State Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council to place on record the schedule for initiating and conducting elections, as clarified by the Supreme Court. In the contempt case, it is contended that the Bar Council has yet to finalise its election schedule and has failed to place on record the timeline for initiating the process. The respondents have intentionally shown disobedience towards the orders passed by the Court. The failure to comply with the order amounted to willful disobedience and a deliberate act of defiance against the authority of the ourt. The judge stated that he would hear the matter on Thursday. Senior counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India referred to the rules, under which the tenure of the Bar Council was extended by 18 months to ensure that no non-practicing advocate becomes a voter or a member of any State Bar Council. The State Bar Council is required to complete the verification process within 18 months from the date of the tenure extension granted by the Bar Council of India and to conduct elections within six months thereafter. He pointed out that, therefore, there was sufficient time to conduct elections under the new rules.
Source link
