Telangana High Court pulls up State govt on steep parking fee
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili, of the Telangana High Court issued a notice to the State government and GHMC on Monday in a suo moto PIL. The PIL concerns the collection of steep parking fee by certain hospitals, malls and cinema theatres, among other commercial […]
Hyderabad: A two-judge panel, comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili, of the Telangana High Court issued a notice to the State government and GHMC on Monday in a suo moto PIL.
The PIL concerns the collection of steep parking fee by certain hospitals, malls and cinema theatres, among other commercial establishments, under the guise of maintenance and security. It argues that the above-mentioned establishments are mandated to provide free parking to consumers and that building permission is only granted by authorities if adequate parking space is provided by these concerns. It further explains that the levying of a parking fee has caused financial loss for certain consumers. The case was adjourned to August 2.
Write appeal dismissed
The panel dismissed a writ appeal filed by Naveen S Garewal, a journalist, against the orders of a single judge of the High Court directing notice in a writ petition filed challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the Tribune Trust.
The panel, while seeking explanation from the petitioner as to how a writ petition was maintainable against a newspaper, opined that there was no illegality in ordering a notice in such matter. The panel reasoned that mere issuance of a notice by the single judge does not amount to adjudicating the matter and therefore the writ appeal was misconceived.
Litigation involving Ramalinga Raju
The same panel on Monday directed the Civil Court to dispose of within six months a litigation pending before it involving Satyam Computer Services Ltd and Ramalinga Raju.
The panel was hearing a civil revision petition on the question of jurisdiction. The matters were disposed of in light of subsequent orders passed by the Commercial Court and the suit was returned to the Civil Court. The appeal and the petition were filed by Srinivas Talluri. The counsel appearing for Satyam and Raju brought to the notice of the court that the civil suit and the civil revision petition were 10 years old. The panel directed the Civil Court to conclude all related proceedings within six months. The panel also made it clear that it was open to the parties to raise appropriate issues before the Civil Court which would expeditiously deal with such applications.
