Indian Byrates and Chemicals Limited, and others filed the writ petitions. They also challenged the inaction of the Director and Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, in not permitting mining operations.
Hyderabad: Justice Challa Kodanda Ram of the Telangana High Court directed the Survey of India, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Telangana and the Director of Mines and Geology to file their counter in a batch of writ petitions challenging a survey conducted relating to the land leased to the petitioners. Indian Byrates and Chemicals Limited, and others filed the writ petitions. They questioned the survey on India their land in erstwhile Khammam district without there being exact coordinates to localise the area notified in the Gazette Notification. They also challenged the inaction of the Director and Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, in not permitting mining operations. The petitioners sought directions to extend the proportionate lease period lost due to illegalities committed for lack of coordination among the authorities. The petitioners also sought permission to carry out mining operations in the leased area by issuing dispatch permits. The judge directed the authorities to file their counters by November 23. He made it clear that he would hear the matters ex parte if the counters are not filed by then.
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Raghavendra Singh Chauhan and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, dismissed a writ appeal on the question of appointment to the post of a lab assistant with Kakatiya University. Md Jameel Pasha questioned the rejection of his application by the university to this post. A single judge had dismissed the petition pointing out that the petitioner was not qualified. The petitioner informed the court that he did not possess the required qualification. S Lakshmi Kanth, counsel for the petitioner, pointed out to previous instances where the university did not adhere to the qualification part. The Chief Justice pointed out that no negative inference can be drawn against a previous act of the university in the present petition.
The same panel extended its earlier interim stay directing St Andrews School not to stop students from attending online classes in light of ‘payment of fee’ controversy. The panel said the main issue on what constitutes tuition fee would have to be decided by the single judge. The panel reiterated its earlier observations and requested the single judge to dispose of the writ petitions on merits by November 30. In a separate development in one of the two writ petitions, the single judge himself recused from hearing the matter. Consequently, the writ petitions will now have to be heard by another judge.
The same panel heard inconclusively arguments relating to the concept of fraudulent account. The panel was dealing with allegations of a fraudulent person having an account. The individual in question was considered to be in possession of a fraudulent account by the RBI and the same was done without any judicial determination. Earlier, Nalin Kumar, the standing counsel for the RBI, had placed an interpretation to Clause 8.12.1 of the Master Circular issued by the RBI. He pointed out that an individual could only be considered to be a ‘fraudulent borrower’ upon judicial determination. The differing stand taken by the RBI and the SBI led to the court directing the bodies to submit a detailed affidavit bifurcating the same into different parts namely (i) the difference between a ‘willful defaulter’ or ‘holder of a fraudulent account’ (ii) the consequence of civil and criminal charges being filed in both the situations (iii) to indicate as to when the civil and the penal consequences respectively, would come into effect and at which stage such civil and the penal consequences will come into effect; (iv) to indicate whether the opportunity of hearing given to “a willful defaulter” under the Master Circular, covering the cases of “willful defaulter”. Nalin Kumar submitted that no opportunity needed to be accorded to the fraudulent holder of an account during the stage of a preliminary hearing. The counsel drew a parallel with the filing of an FIR wherein the law enforcement agency does not provide an opportunity to the accused. The panel adjourned the case for further hearing.
Justice A Rajasheker Reddy reserved orders in a petition questioning the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The judge was dealing with a review petition filed by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited. The petitioner questioned the appointment of retired judge Justice Madan B Lokur as the sole arbitrator. The petitioner complained that the court had no jurisdiction to appoint a sole arbitrator in the present case. The petitioner complained that the jurisdiction of the court does not fall within the ‘seat’ agreed upon for arbitration under the strict sense of the word within the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.