�Hyderabad:�A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court directed the state government to consider afresh the claims of various engineering colleges in the state and if necessary, appropriately modify the schedule of counselling so as to enable a meaningful consideration of each appellant’s claim. The panel of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao heard a batch of 12 appeals filed by the management of various engineering colleges in the state. They questioned a common order of a single judge rejecting their petitions on August 9. The appellants in order to modify/enhance the intake of seats and merger of courses, preferred applications before the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and Jawaharlal Nehru Technical University (JNTU). The case of the appellants was that both the statutory bodies granted them necessary permissions and the only impediment was that the officials of state government have not taken any decision. The claims of the appellants were rejected by the government and it was challenged as being devoid of reasons. It was contended that the respondents on the one hand declined permission to the appellants despite approval from AICTE and JNTU, and on the other hand, permitted certain unaided educational institutions to undertake same exercise and granted them permission. There should have been some transparent policy on the strength of which such decisions could be taken. The decision of authority cannot be based on whims and fancies. Remanding the matter back for fresh consideration, the panel said that since the impugned order is passed without examining the case of each of the appellants on the anvil of relevant parameters flowing from the Education Act, the same cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The panel further observed that the learned single judge erred in not examining the validity of impugned order dated July 26, on the touchstone of principles laid down by the Constitution bench in Mohinder Singh Gill vs The Chief Election Commissioner. Speaking for the panel, Justice Sujoy Paul said that the court is basically concerned with the validity and correctness of the decision making process. He added that it is within the province of the department to take a decision regarding demand about change of intake of seats and merger of courses and court cannot sit in an appeal to decide the aforesaid aspects. The judge observed that the court has no expertise on aforesaid aspects and the respondent department is best suited to take a decision on the aforesaid aspects. The judge also observed that so far as decision making process of the state is concerned, it runs contrary to the principles of natural justice. There was no finding as to why the approvals given by AICTE and JNTU were to be discarded. No reason was assigned as to why the particular claim of the appellants could not find favour with the respondents. “The ‘reasons’ are held to be the heartbeat of ‘conclusions’. In the absence of ‘reasons’, ‘conclusion’ cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.”
HC for sensitivity in rape victim check
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday directed the home department to find a way out for examining a seven year old visually impaired rape victim without causing further damage to her psyche. The mother of the victim who suffered rape at the Blind Girls hostel in July 2024 moved the High Court. Earlier, the victim fell prey to a bathroom cleaner at the hostel. The investigating officer wanted to record the statement of the child before the magistrate, summons was issued to bring the child to Hyderabad. However, the child has been terrified of coming to Hyderabad following the sexual assault on her. However, the investigating officer was insisting that the child be brought to Hyderabad. Vasudha Nagarajan, counsel for the petitioner wondered why the statement of the child cannot be recorded in her residence at Vikarabad considering the exceptional nature of the case. The mother prayed for an investigation that is supportive of the child survivor and not one that would further traumatise the child. Justice Vijaysen posted the matter to August 17 and directed the government pleader to be present and suggest an arrangement that would help the child.
No bail for impostor posing as judge
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of Telangana High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to an accused alleged to have dishonestly impersonated himself as a judge showing a fake identity car, resume, and biodata. The judge was dealing with an anticipatory bail petition filed by Namala Narendar. The accused is alleged to have misrepresented himself as judge and collected Rs 20 lakh from the complainant promising to provide her the post of record assistant in the court. The petitioner contended that he was is in no way concerned with the alleged offences and the complainant foisted false charges only with an intention to harass the petitioner. The additional public prosecutor (APP) opposed the grant of bail and pointed out that the petitioner is involved in nine other cases. The APP also informed the court that the investigation against the petitioner is in progress. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and APP, the judge dismissed the petition in view of the pending investigation and serious allegations levelled against the petitioner. The judge also directed the investigating officer to follow the procedure laid down in Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code and guidelines formulated by the apex court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
HC grants time till Nov. 4 to officials on forensic labs
The two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court on Monday granted time to the Director-General of Police, the principal secretary for home, Shikha Goel IAS and Agarwal IPS till November 4 to comply with directions relating to setting up of forensic labs of the state. The said order was made by the court in an earlier PIL in April, 2022. The panel comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty was dealing with contempt case filed by T. Dangopal Rao, a public interest judicial activist. In April 2022 the court entertained the petition complaining the inaction on the part of the government in establishing Central, State and Regional level forensic science laboratories. The petitioner pleaded that such establishment was mandatory as per the directions of the apex court made in 2013. Earlier, a status report was submitted by the state government mentioning that FSL including narcotics wing were in functioning 13 places. The state government also mentioned that it had taken up revision of service rules “as in when recruitment is completed, lands and buildings are acquired by the RFSLs the four more centres will become functional. The four centres are at Kamareddy, Mahbubnagar, Khammam, and Mancherial. In its order in April 2022, the panel granted the government six months’ time to convert its intent into reality. On an application of the government the period was extended for further six months from August 2023. T. Dangopal Rao would argue that, even after the said period there is non-compliance and this amounted to contempt. The panel granted time to police of stop brass to ensure compliance or face the risk of content and enlarged at time till November 4.
