Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the establishment of a red category industrial unit in Sankireddypalle Village, Wanaparthy district. The panel comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda was hearing a writ plea filed by K. Vishnuvardhan Reddy and seven others, all residents of Sankireddypalle Village. The petitioners contended that the grant of Consent for Establishment (CFE) dated April 3, 2024, by the Telangana State Pollution Control Board to PreUnique India Private Limited, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the Constitution. The petitioners, engaged in agriculture, private employment, and small business, argued that the proposed unit poses a serious threat to local water bodies, agricultural activity, and public health. They sought cancellation of the land allotment admeasuring 40 acres in favour of the company and sought a direction to the respondent authorities to identify and allot alternative land away from habitations and ecologically sensitive areas. The panel posted the matter for hearing.
HC orders return of Rs 5 L bank guarantee
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court directed the deputy commissioner, prohibition and excise department, to release a bank guarantee of Rs 5 lakh furnished by a Hyderabad-based businessman, after noting that the underlying criminal case against him was quashed. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Ghanshyam Das Karwa, a businessman and resident of Begum Bazaar, Hyderabad, who contended that the authorities were illegally withholding the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner before deputy commissioner of excise. Counsel for the petitioner, Damodar Mundra, contended that the charges in the said criminal case pertained to the alleged unauthorised sale of jaggery, which was neither a prohibited item nor required a licence under law. He pointed out that the said criminal proceedings were quashed by the High Court in May 2025, wherein the Court had clearly held that sale of jaggery does not constitute any offence. Relying on various government circulars and notifications including circular dated December 22, 2001, issued by the commissioner of prohibition and excise and GO issued on December 27, 2006, counsel for the petitioner contended that jaggery was an agricultural produce and exempt from tax, licence, or restriction, including when transported or sold. Despite repeated representations, the deputy commissioner failed to return the bank guarantee, prompting the present writ plea. Counsel further contended that continued inaction was arbitrary, contrary to binding judicial precedent, and violative of the Constitution. Justice Vinod Kumar, noting the absence of any subsisting criminal liability and the admitted quashing of the case, directed the deputy commissioner to forthwith release bank guarantee by Tuesday. The judge further cautioned that failure to comply would necessitate the personal appearance of the deputy commissioner before the Court on Wednesday.
HC upholds denial of promotion by Nims
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a senior security officer of Nims, challenging the rejection of his promotion as chief security officer, citing unrefuted complaints of dereliction of duty and indiscipline. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by B. Umesh, who initially joined Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences (Nims) as a security officer in April 1990 and was promoted as senior security officer in 2002, with retrospective effect from 1997. The petitioner claimed that a punishment imposed on him in June 2009 was later modified to stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and eventually treated as ‘on duty’ by the executive board through a resolution in 2015. He contended that in light of this modification, it should be deemed that no punishment existed as of June 2009 and, therefore, he was entitled to be considered for promotion as chief security officer from that date, particularly in view of a vacancy arising in September 2012. Nims, however, rejected his request through an order in 2017, prompting the petitioner to file the writ plea. In response, Nims argued that while the punishment was modified, it did not amount to complete exoneration and pointed to several serious complaints made against the petitioner ranging from failure to cooperate in a theft investigation to indiscipline and non-compliance with internal dress code norms. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), after evaluating the confidential reports and complaints, found the petitioner unfit for the role of chief security officer, emphasising his repeated indiscipline and failure to maintain law and order on campus. Justice Bheemapaka noted that the petitioner had not filed any rebuttal to the DPC’s findings or to the averments made by Nims in his response, including serious allegations by senior staff. The judge observed that the DPC had acted fairly and impartially, applying its mind to relevant material, and its conclusion that the petitioner lacked the necessary qualities for a senior supervisory post could not be faulted. Holding that the petitioner’s silence on key allegations amounted to implied admission, the judge concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the DPC’s assessment or the impugned rejection order. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the writ plea.
HC admits plea on delay in power supply
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging inaction of Northern Power Distribution Company to supply electricity to a rice mill at Somaram, Karimnagar. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by M/s Vinayaka Modern Rice Mills. The petitioner contended that even though they have complied with all procedural and financial requirements, power authorities have failed to provide electricity connection to its rice mill. The petitioner further contended that it had paid over Rs 10 lakh to the electricity department in June 2024, pursuant to the sanctioned estimate for the supply of power. It was pointed out that a delivery order issued in April 2025, was also issued by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), directing the department to execute line work and supply power in accordance with the General Terms and Standards (GTS), which allows the utility to use existing distribution infrastructure to provide power to consumers. Despite these directions and full payment, the rice mill remained without power for over a year, resulting in the mill being non-operational and leading to severe financial losses, the petitioner argued. Justice P. Karthik, after hearing the initial submissions, directed authorities to obtain instructions and is posted for further adjudication.
