Canceling the sought -after school permission

Hyderabad: The High Court will continue to hear a written petition that challenges the alleged inaction of the Hyderabad District Education officer, in passing a recognition order granted to the School ABM Ocean-the Abm. Justice T. Vinod Kumar hears a plea written by Mohd Dawood, who claimed that the school works in Malakpet without the necessary permissions. Dawood claimed that he presented a representation in May 2024 seeking the cancellation of recognition and no objection certificate (NOC), because the same works in a residential area. The petitioner stressed that the institution, which offers classes from the mayor to the 10th grade, operates in a residential area without mandatory construction permissions and occupancy certificates, violating the rules and construction regulations. The petitioner also claimed that Masjid-E-Taqiuddin is illegally driven in school spaces. The petitioner claimed that the inaction of the respondents represents an arbitrary and illegal abandonment of the statutory duties, violating the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of the Constitution. The petitioner also argued that such inaction is in the direct violation of the Law on Telangan education. In particular, it was noted that the school does not have a fire and continues to operate under a provisional certificate issued by the Government. In addition, the petitioner has requested legal actions against ABM Educational and assistance to the Society and Educational and Assistance Society, while requested that an action report be presented before the court. During the meeting, the petitioner’s lawyer looked for two weeks to verify the status of the requested permissions. As a result, the judge posted the problem for additional judgment.

HC gives security in case of suicide.

Justice K. Sujana from the High Court Talangana granted anticipatory bail to a professional software accused in a suicide case. The judge occupied by a criminal petition filed by Shailender Reddy Alias ​​Tadishetty Shylender. According to the criminal prosecution, in September 2024, the deceased committed suicide due to the intolerable harassment by the accused. A selfie video and a suicide note were recovered, based on which a case was registered against the petitioner to commit suicide under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner claimed that he never prevented the deceased from committing suicide and was falsely involved. The petitioner’s lawyer was based on the decisions of the Supreme Court, in which it is considered that a simple abusive language or the alleged harassment does not constitute attention unless there is an intention to instigate suicide. After peruditing the recorded material, the judge observed that the translation of the Selfie video did not reveal elements of deviation in suicide in accordance with section 306 of the Indian Criminal Code (now section 108 of the NBS). Also, the judge mentioned that the material part of the investigation was completed, which made a suitable case for granting the anticipatory bail with certain conditions. Consequently, the judge allowed the criminal petition.

Disciplinary action against officer Governor asked pensioner

The Rajeshwar Rao’s Namavarapu justice from the High Court of Telangan has accepted a written plea with a disciplinary procedure caused by a retired government officer. The judge occupied by a written plea submitted by a pensioning assistant director of the fishing, the district of Nirmal B. Devender, contesting the issuance of a memory of accusation after retirement. According to the petitioner, he retired from service in April 2024, and later he was close to the High Court, submitting a written plea, looking for the direction to the raising of state animals, the development of the dairy and the fishing department and other authorities, to process and releases his pension and other retirement benefits. In the previous written plea, the court adopted a provisional order in December 2024, guiding the respondent authorities to submit their pension documents to the General Accountant within four weeks. The petitioner now argues that, as a counter of the provisional direction of the court, the respondent authorities issued a memory of accusation in January 2025, the initiation of disciplinary procedures against the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the accusation memory was issued without justification and violating the revised Tlagana pensions read with the Telign Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. The petitioner claims that the disciplinary action was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The petitioner is looking for a direction to set aside the taxpayer and to immediately issue his pension and pension benefits, together with the interest for delayed payments. The assistant government’s bower who appeared for the state asked for time to take instructions. As a result, the judge posted the problem for additional judgment.

HC rejects the pleading on the prefix “Alphores” in the survey nomination

A group of two judges of the High Court in Telangana rejected a written petition that challenges the action of the officer returning to the State of the State of Telangana in the prefixing “Alfores” on the name of a politician for future biennial elections at the Legislative Council from the graduates and the teacher constituency. covering Medak, Nizamabad, Adilabad and Karimnagar. The group, formed by the interim chief judge, Sujoy Paul and Judge Renka Yara, addressed a petition submitted by lawyer Sardar Ravinder on the elections scheduled for February 27, 2025. The petitioner claimed that the return officer illegally assigned the series no. 11 While an uneligible person was erected at series no. 5, arguing that the series arrangement of the candidates should first give priority the state political parties recognized in alphabetically, followed by registered and independent political parties. He also stated that his representation towards the authorities mentioned that Vootukuri Narender Reddy filed and filed the nomination without additional prefixes or suffixes, however “alphores” was inexplicably prefix to his name. However, the group observed that the representation of the petitioner did not specify any dissatisfaction with the prefix “alfores” before the name of the private respondent. Senior Counsel Avinash Desai, representing the respondents, argued that the petition was barred under article 329 (b) of the constitution, citing the supreme Court’s judgment in NP Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, and Mintained That Highs Courts Lack Jurisdiction Under Arts 226 to Entertain Petitions related to election, except electoral petitions. After taking into account both parties, the group considered that the court could not interfere in the electoral process and mentioned that a aggressor petitioner had to remedy an electoral petition. Consequently, the written petition was rejected.