Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, on Thursday dismissed a writ appeal filed by three diet contractors from different districts of the State challenging the existing contracts in their favour. The panel was hearing the appeal against the dismissal of the writ […]
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice CV Bhaskar Reddy, on Thursday dismissed a writ appeal filed by three diet contractors from different districts of the State challenging the existing contracts in their favour.
The panel was hearing the appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioners contended that the termination of the diet contractors is itself illegal as only one month’s notice was issued for termination, which is contrary to the contract which provides for three months prior notice.
However, the single judge pointed out that the petitioners enjoyed the stay for more than two months, upon issuance of one month’s notice. The panel also took note of the single judge’s view stating that the said decision to cancel the existing contracts is a policy decision of the government to improve the existing diet by providing a nutritious diet to inpatients and duty doctors of all government hospitals and health centres.
A committee is said to have been constituted to recommend measures for the improvement of diet and enhancement of diet charges. As contained in G.O. Ms.No.34 dated March 21, the committee made recommendations to improve the diet and also enhance the charges.
Further, the issue before the court was whether the petitioners can be permitted to continue to supply diets to the respective hospitals until their contract expires and at enhanced rates. While in certain cases the panel earlier did grant relief to continue the present contractors until alternative arrangements are made, the panel refused a similar relief to the contractors in the present case.
It also pointed out that the writ petition itself ought to have been dismissed on the grounds of misjoinder of parties as the appellants and petitioners are diet contractors from different districts, with different contracts from different hospitals for different terms, thus different cause of actions.
Further, the panel also pointed out that the Constitution Court cannot be a court to enforce the contractual obligation, and dismissed the appeal.
PIL on Rohingya families
The same panel allowed a PIL filed in the interest of medical care for Rohingya refugee families. The PIL was filed by the Migrants Rights Council seeking basic facilities for maternal health and basic human dignity of women and families from Myanmar, who have suffered persecution, violence and displacement.
The council filed the petition in the interest of 4,000-5,000 Rohingya refugee families living in these camps, who do not have access to basic medical care, maternal healthcare, paediatric care, reliable sources of clean water, nutritious food and secure shelters as guaranteed under the Constitution. It requested that the court direct the respondents to provide them with basic amenities.
The matter was adjourned to November 11 as a similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court.
Injunction against Swami Paripoornanda
The City Civil Court, in the ad-interim order, issued an injunction against Swami Paripoornanda and others from interfering with the day-to-day operations of Bharat Today news channel, presently being managed by M/s. Janam Infotainment Private Limited.
The Court of the III Additional Chief Judge granted the injunction against Shahasra Television Private Limited and others. According to Janam Infotainment, it entered into an MOU with Sahasra Television and was put in possession of the management of the TV channel. However, after entering into the agreement, it is alleged that various direct and indirect threats have been made by the functionaries of Sahasra Television, particularly Swami Paripoornanda.
The petitioners further contended that the exclusion of Swamy Paripoornanda from the management was agreed upon by the parties, but was not reduced to writing out of respect for the person. The plaint contains various allegations of threats and interference.
Stay on SHRC proceedings
The panel granted a stay of all further proceedings pending before the Telangana State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) in a writ petition which has alleged illegal construction of a dairy farm.
The writ plea was filed by Jagadeshwar Reddy, who contended that the SHRC ordered the demolition of his cattle shed despite the municipal authorities granting him the licence to run the facility. The petitioner further contended that the SHRC has no authority to pass such orders in a matter which is purely a civil dispute.
The panel, speaking through the Chief Justice, stated that service matters, matrimonial issues, and municipal and civil disputes do not fall in the ambit of the Rights Commission unless a human rights violation issue is involved in it. There are others forums to adjudicate such matters, it said.
The panel held that the SHRC has no power to interfere and entertain any private dispute as such interference is beyond the scope and purview of the Act. It stayed the proceedings before the Commission and adjourned the matter to December 5.
Cases against promoter school assistants quashed
Justice K Surender of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal cases lodged against promoter school assistants at a government school. The petitioners, approximately 500 of them, were promoted to the said post based on PG certificates obtained through distance education mode.
The State initiated criminal action on the grounds that the PG certificates were forged and fabricated. Senior counsel L Ravichander pointed out that the government had stated before the Lok Ayukta that the certificates were genuine.
E Madan Mohan, senior counsel, also pointed out how the service tribunal had upheld the certificates and the government action was faulted. The petitioners also successfully contended that the universities, including IGNOU, had also verified the certificates issued by them as genuine and therefore criminal cases cannot be lodged.