Telangana High Court rejects PIL against Wakf Board

Hyderabad: A two Bench panel consisting of the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili of the Telangana High Court refused to entertain a PIL relating to constitution of a boundary wall of Waqf property in Begumpet. The petitioners, S. V. Ranga and others complained against permission granted for the construction of […]

Hyderabad: A two Bench panel consisting of the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili of the Telangana High Court refused to entertain a PIL relating to constitution of a boundary wall of Waqf property in Begumpet.

The petitioners, S. V. Ranga and others complained against permission granted for the construction of boundary wall around a Waqf property. Abu Akram, counsel for the Waqf Board pointed out that the title of the property was not in dispute as stated by the petitioner. He further contended that it was a personal case disguised as an PIL. The panel refused to go into the question and observed that the Waqf Act provided an alternative remedy and the petitioner was free to invoke the said remedy.

Golconda Fort boundaries

The same Panel extended time for the State Government to submit its report on the nature and extent of the heritage vicinity of the Golconda Fort. Senior Counsel L. Ravichander pointed out before the court how the panel had earlier granted time for the recommendation of an expert body, calling for a report and the same is not on record. The panel granted four weeks’ time to State Government as a last indulgence.

GHMC issued notice on hoardings

The panel issued a notice to GHMC in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) complaining about a failure on part of GHMC to remove banners, posters and hoardings of political parties in Hyderabad. The petition was filed by Dr. K. A. Paul stating that there was a duty cast on the civic authority to bring down large erected hoardings which were both obstructing roads and causing inconveniences for commuters in the city. The GHMC has the power to take primitive action against those who put up such illegal hoardings. Earlier, the High Court in similar matter had issued series of directions requiring the GHMC to closely monitor and remove such hoardings.

Central varsity registrar summoned

The said panel called for the personal presence of the Registrar of the University of Hyderabad in court in case a counter is not filed in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by 5th July. The petition complains inaction by officials of the University and the Ministry of Education against allegations of misappropriation of government funds amounting to crores of rupees and misuse of power by a former Vice Chancellor of the University and a former Dean of the School of Mathematics. The petition was filed by The Right Society.

Global Hospital case

A panel of Bhaskara Pantulu and Binod Kumar Sinha of the Hyderabad Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dismissed a case on opression and mismanagement against Global Hospitals. The panel imposed cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner. The family feud between Dr. K. Ravindaranath and others has been in public domain. Shareholders holding about 67% of shares were up in arms complaining that the authorized share capital of company was increased illegally. There were also illegal allotment of shares and allegations of money laundering. The Panel found that every board resolution or resolutions passed in Extraordinary General Meeting or increase in the share capital or the running of the business is all done in perfectly legal manner under the leadership.

The panel also found that the petitioner failed to put forth any valid point. The panel went on to say that the petitioners having violated the customary values of the family, the son and daughter ventured into something that would set a very bad precedent for any children in future. In addition to the above the panel held that, even ignoring the personal relationships involved in this case, on only merits, petitioners thoroughly failed to put forth even a single point for the consideration of the Court and hence, panel dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000.