Vattinagulapally exempted from the purview of GO 69
The Telangana High Court on Friday allowed three writ petitions seeking a direction to exclude a part of Vattnagulapally from the purview of GO 111 and GO 69, stating that the area did not come under the catchment zone of Osmansagar and therefore it is outside the scope of the two GOs. The court said: “The facts of the present writ petitions reveal that Vattinagulapally Village has a unique geography and drainage pattern as compared to other villages under GO 111. There is a prominent ridge dividing the area of Vattinagulapally Village. The water on the western side of the ridge flows into Osmansagar lake, whereas the water on the eastern side of the ridge flows into an existing stormwater drain and thereafter into the Musi river downstream of Osmansagar Lake. The area in question as per the EPTRI report is not at all under the Catchment area, and allowed all the three writ petitions.” A bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili was dealing with three writ petitions filed by Agni Agritech Private Limited and three others, M Anuradha and four others, and K Suryanarayana and seven others, all of them have parcels of land in Vattinagulapally village seeking a direction that the proposed rules and regulatory measures under GO 69 are not made applicable to their lands.
Plea in HC challenges NALSAR appointments
The Telangana High Court on Friday issued notices to Law Secretaries, Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University to explain on what grounds was Prof Upendra Baxi nominated as a member of academic council of the university. The HC was hearing a petition against certian appointments that had been allegedly made in violation of rules. The petition was filed by Mahesh Mamindla, an advocate, seeking a direction against the respondents to forthwith constitute academic counsel of the NALSAR University as per Section 13 of the NALSAR University Act, 1998 and as amended. The petitioner contended that he had filed an RTI application with the University seeking information on certain appointments that were made by flagrantly violating the rules. However, the university was reluctant to furnish the desired information, he told the court. The court issued notices to the respondents and posted the matter for hearing after summer vacation.