Hyderabad: Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the vacation court, directed Anwar Ul Uloom College of Business Management to immediately release the original educational certificates of a former student after allegedly being denied on several occasions. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Saba Praveen alleging that the college was refusing to return her original certificates despite repeated representations dated October 9, 2024, and January 21, 2025. These documents, submitted at the time of admission, were essential for her to pursue employment opportunities. The petitioner contended that the college’s action was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution. She submitted that the non-availability of her certificates was preventing her from attending job interviews. During the hearing, counsel for the college denied receiving any such representations but stated that the institution was willing to return the documents if the petitioner approached them directly. Taking a balanced view, the judge directed the petitioner to approach the college afresh with a formal request and ordered the college to return the documents “forthwith” upon such request. The matter has been posted for further hearing on June 9.HC: Hear plea first before eviction notice Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court, in a vacation court, reprimanded the actions of the Telangana Housing Board and other authorities for issuing an eviction notice against a community hall without granting the affected parties an opportunity to be heard. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by M. Ashok and M. Balappa, representing the management of P.S. Nagar Community Hall, also known as Meena Garden Function Hall. The petition challenged the eviction notice issued on May 19, which directed the removal of the petitioners from the premises located at PS Nagar, Vijayanagar Colony. The petitioners argued that the eviction notice was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was issued without any prior hearing. They also contended that the land in question is used for community purposes and that the notice contravenes provisions of the Telangana Housing Board Act. Opposing the plea, the respondents sought dismissal of the writ petition, contending that the authorities acted within their legal powers and clarified that the petitioners were at liberty to approach the appellate authority if aggrieved by the order passed by the competent authority. The judge observed that no eviction or adverse order can be passed without following due process of law, particularly without offering the petitioners a chance to be heard. The judge directed the authorities to act strictly in accordance with the law and not to pass final orders without first hearing the petitioners. Mineral Corp told to reconsider tender bid Justice K. Sujana of the Telangana High Court, sitting in vacation court, directed the Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation Limited to reconsider the bid submitted by Jithin Minerals. The judge instructed TSMDC to accept the Provident Fund (PF) registration certificate furnished by the bidder and restrained the corporation from issuing fresh tenders for the same project. The direction came during the hearing in a writ plea filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of its bid by TSMDC. The petitioner mistakenly uploaded a labour certificate instead of the requisite PF certificate due to an oversight during the online submission process. As the tender portal did not permit editing once the documents were uploaded, the petitioner made a representation to the tender committee, requesting permission to physically submit the PF certificate before the bid deadline. The committee declined. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the non-submission of the PF certificate was a curable defect and not a disqualifying factor. It was contended that the tendering committee’s refusal to consider the representation was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Constitution, especially given the petitioner’s complete eligibility for the bidding process. Counsel for TSMDC argued that the PF certificate appeared to be an afterthought and claimed it was generated only subsequently. He maintained that entertaining the petitioner’s representation at this stage would cause hardship and delay in the tender process. The judge observed that failure to submit a PF certificate being a curable defect should not automatically disqualify a bidder. Accordingly, the judge directed TSMDC to reassess the bid of the petitioner, by taking into account the PF certificate.
Source link
