Legal references | The DEO’s order to close the school is upheld

HYDERABAD: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Vishwapragathi Vidyalaya challenging the closure of school premises by the Karimnagar District Education Officer (DEO) and other authorities. The applicant sought the court’s intervention to reopen his school located at H. No. 21206/A/3 Gandhinagar in Huzurabad, which had been sealed by the DEO and Mandal Education Officer (MEO), Huzurabad. The petitioner alleged that this action was against the provisions of the Telangana Education Act, 1982. However, these arguments did not convince the judge. The judge noted that the notice was issued in 2022 but the school failed to take any remedial measures. One of the main reasons for the closure was the lack of a fire safety NOC, which is an important requirement under government regulations. Although the petitioner was aware of this shortcoming, he did not obtain the requisite NOC and did not submit the registered lease of the property to the respondent authorities. The judge highlighted the risk to students, saying: “You’re playing with the lives of kids” and pointed to Supreme Court fire safety guidelines that require schools to be sealed without proper fire safety measures. The judge also criticized the applicant for delaying the case from 2023, stressing the safety of the 220 students studying at the school.

HC not to obstruct Adilabad collector order

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court refused to stay the order of the Adilabad District Collector upholding the eviction order issued by the Special Deputy Collector. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Pirala Pedda Swamy. The plaintiff’s case is that his late father purchased agricultural land from the defendant’s grandfather measuring Ac.12.5 Gts situated at village Gangannapet Utnoor Mandal in Adilabad District in March, 1959. Since then the plaintiff’s father has been in possession and enjoyment. of the specified land. It is further contended that after the death of his father, the plaintiff took possession of the land which was the subject of the appeal and cultivated it without any interference. The complaint of the plaintiff is that in the year 1973, the Special Deputy Collector initiated suo moto proceedings challenging the possession of the subject plot of land in which the defendant’s grandfather admitted the execution of the sale, the Special Deputy Collector (SDC) without considering the said admission passed an illegal order stating that the said transfer was invalid as it contravened Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Transfer Regulations, 1959. Thereafter, the non-official respondents approached the District Collector, Adilabad and filed an application challenging the order passed by the SDC, pursuant to which the impugned orders were issued in August 2019, upholding the orders passed by the SDC, allegedly disregarding the fact that the said orders had lost validity as “not fulfilled”. However, the respondents argued that the sale contravenes the APSALTR, which prohibits tribal-to-non-tribal land transactions to protect tribal property rights. The judge dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner had not challenged the 1973 order through the appropriate legal channels or exhausted statutory remedies under the APSALTR. The Court relied on various Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the importance of pursuing statutory remedies before invoking jurisdiction.

Businessmen arrested with illegal drugs were released on bail

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court granted bail to two businessmen who were allegedly found in possession of 36 grams of cocaine, 110 grams of MDMA, nine ecstasy pills, six patches of LSD, 30 grams of charas, 34 grams of meow-meow, p’ mobile phones, car and other things along with other accused. The judge was hearing a bail plea filed by Anas Khan and Saif Khan. The plaintiffs’ attorney argued that his clients were innocent and wrongly implicated. The lawyer also noted that the plaintiffs do not have a criminal record and the case is under investigation. It was also brought to the judge’s attention that the plaintiffs have been in custody since August. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the plea, stating that the petitioners face serious charges and there is a high probability of them committing similar crimes if released on bail. After hearing the parties, the judge observed that no criminal record had been reported against the applicants and since they had remained in custody since August, the judge considered that it was an appropriate case to grant the applicants conditional bail.