Telangana High Court reserves case pertaining to flyover at Kokapet
Senior counsel DV Sitaram Murthy appearing for the petitioners argued, interest of public at large must be considered as it outweighs individual interests.
Hyderabad: Justice Lalitha Kanneganti of the Telangana High Court on Friday reserved for orders the case pertaining to flyover near Movie Towers, Kokapet. K Rahul, a resident of Movie Towers filed this case seeking court directions against the construction of a flyover. He contended that the construction would lead congestion of road leading to Movie Towers.
Senior counsel DV Sitaram Murthy appearing for the petitioners argued, interest of public at large must be considered as it outweighs individual interests. The access road near Movie Towers is also the access to the Outer Ring Road. While new constructions are taken up the government should keep in mind the properties in the surrounding area, he said.
Also Read
Aurora group of institutions
A two judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy on Friday directed the state government to consider enhancing the intake for emerging subjects in the Aurora Group of Institutions. It is also directed that NOC should be issued to the petitioner institutions within seven days.
The petitioner filed this case complaining about the state governments rejection of sanctioned additional intake in the B Tech courses. Even after obtaining AICTE approval, State Government approval is made mandatory, the petitioner said.
Elephant for procession
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of Telangana High Court on Friday examined the case pertaining to transport of elephant from Maharashtra to city for the procession of Giarhveen Shareef of Hazrath Ghouse-e-Azam Dastagir Reh. The Holy flag was supposed to be carried on an elephant according to the petitioner.
Chief Conservator of Forests, Telangana oral direction to obtain permission from the Director Zoo Parks, Hyderabad was challenged by the Hazrath Ghouse-e-Azam Welfare Society. The petitioner said they were hiring an elephant from Maharashtra directly from a third party.
The Director of Zoo Park directed the petitioner to obtain a NOC from Maharastra through police permission letter and consent letter from a veterinary doctor. The petitioner argued that under Section 44 of The WildLife (Protection) Act an NOC from the forest department is not required for transporting an elephant owned by an individual.
Petitioner complained that such procedure was not followed during Muharram, the authorities are acting in a discriminatory way. Seeking the response of the authorities in a week the judge adjourned the case.
