Justice league: Telangana HC questions delay in PIL on land allocation to BRS

Emphasising its limitations in intervening in the decisions made by the Bovernor, the court directed counsels and the AG to submit their counters.
Telangana HC
Telangana HC(Photo | EPS)

A bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday asked former MLC S Ramulu Naik to explain the reason for filing a PIL against the allocation of one acre of land at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills to the TRS (now BRS) after a delay of 20 years.

In its directions, a bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti gave two weeks to counsel representing Naik to submit an amendment petition explaining the reason for the delay and also directed the Registry to list the case for further consideration after this period.

Naik, a social activist and member of the Indian National Congress, moved court seeking a direction to the state government to reclaim the land measuring 4,840 sq yd allotted to the then TRS at an unusually low price of Rs 100 per sq yd, despite the market value running into hundreds of crores.

According to the petitioner, the TRS/BRS was granted the land for constructing its party office as part of a GO (GO 955 Revenue, Assn.III Department) dated November 27, 2004.

One of the conditions for the allocation of the land was that it should not be utilised for residential or commercial purposes or alienated to any person or institution. The PIL alleged that the TRS/BRS violated this condition by establishing the T-News Channel in the same building for commercial purposes under the name of M/s Telangana Broadcasting Pvt Ltd.

Court has no authority to issue orders to guv: HC

A bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, on Wednesday ruled that courts lack the authority to issue orders to the Governor. The bench was hearing of two writ petitions filed by Dasoju Sravan and Kurra Satyanarayana, who were recommended by the BRS for nomination as members to the Legislative Council under the governor’s quota.

The two leaders challenged the decision of the Raj Bhavan to reject their nomination because of their political affiliations and failing to meet the criteria of being eminent persons to quality to become members of the Legislative Council. Emphasising its limitations in intervening in the decisions made by the Bovernor, the court directed counsels and the AG to submit their counters.

Sravan was represented by Aditya Sondhi, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Karnataka, while Mayur Reddy appeared on behalf of Kurra Satyanarayana.The bench scheduled the adjudication of the two writ petitions on the issues of maintainability and admission for February 8.

Order on mandatory govt service for docs stayed

Justice N V Shravan Kumar on Wednesday ordered a three-week suspension on the mandatory condition for doctors with super specialty qualifications to join as senior residents in government service. This interim order was pronounced while addressing a writ petition filed by Dr Anvesh Reddy and 22 others, challenging the requirement. Senior counsel L Ravichander, representing the petitioners, argued that the imposition of such a condition lacked legal authority and amounted to a form of disguised bonded labour imposed by the government.

He emphasised that the signing of a bond by resident doctors at the time of securing their seats did not obligate them to serve as senior residents. He further contended that the government’s actions were contrary to the directives issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC).

The petitioners pointed out that the NMC had recommended scrapping the bond policy and mandatory rural government service, echoing a suggestion made by the Supreme Court on the matter.

The counsel for the petitioners highlighted the inconsistency of requiring students to either serve or pay Rs 50 lakh, deeming it akin to capitation fees. He remarked, “It is strange that the government, which is required to supervise the prohibition of the collection of capitation fees, itself is collecting capitation fees.”

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express