Telangana HC faults GO on preferential treatment
The judge observed that the GO was in violation of the Disabilities Act and held that it should be struck down while disposing of the case
Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice J Anil Kumar, faulted the Government Order which prescribed 70 per cent or more disability for preferential treatment in the local category post as teacher. One Chintha Nataraj filed the writ plea challenging the GO as a violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The petitioner complained this was discriminatory. The judge observed that the GO was in violation of the Disabilities Act and held that it should be struck down while disposing of the case.
SHRC jurisdiction questioned
The Telangana High Court took a critical note about the action of the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) in issuing directions on matters which are not in its jurisdiction. M Srihari and three others filed a writ plea questioning the action of SHRC in entertaining all kinds of grievances. They said the Commission has directed them to maintain the status quo in a claim for ownership of property in Kokapet. The Commission went beyond its jurisdiction in directing the status quo order, though it observed that the complainant could move the Civil Court and also lodge a police complaint, the petitioners said. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice T Vinod Kumar pointed out that the Supreme Court and High Court have already ruled that Human Rights Commission have no right to deal with such issues. It accordingly allowed the writ petition setting aside the November 22 order of the SHRC.
Action against hotel sought
Justice NV Shravan Kumar took on file the issue of problems faced by the residents of Mallepally due to Prince Hotel which has no authorisation or legal permissions. The judge directed the GHMC to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. Mohd Abdul Salam, a resident of Mallepally, had complained that they were facing problems due to unauthorised parking in front of their residence by Prince Hotel visitors. The petitioner also said the hotel was running illegally and that civic authorities were turning a blind eye despite multiple representations. He also sought the demolition of the hotel. The case was disposed of.
