HYDERABAD: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court asked the state government to file a compliance report on the facilities provided to school children in government hostels and state-run residential schools. The panel, comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, was dealing with a PIL filed by one Keethineedi Akhil Sri Guru Teja seeking to address the dearth of basic amenities for children residing in those institutions. According to the petitioner, the hostels had inadequate provisions as regards bathrooms, toilets, bedding, toiletries, and clean drinking water. The inadequacies were alleged to be in violation of chapter IV of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) guidelines, 2018. The PIL highlighted specific deficiencies, such as a shortfall of 644 bathrooms, 1,058 toilets and 258 wardens in educational institutions. Similarly, standalone hostels had a shortfall of 259 bathrooms and 419 toilets, falling below the prescribed ratio. At the previous hearing, the additional advocate-general (AAG) submitted a compliance report, but counsel for the petitioner argued that it failed to address several crucial aspects, including supply of mattresses, blankets, toiletries, RO drinking water, and psychiatric counselling for students. The AAG undertook to file an additional compliance report in response to the aspects pointed out by the petitioner. When the matter was heard again, the AAG sought further two weeks’ time to file a detailed compliance report addressing the concerns raised. Accordingly, the panel granted two weeks.
Plea challenges denial of payment to diet contractor
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the denial of payment for diet supplies provided by a diet contractor under the Aarogyasri scheme. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by one K.S. Fazil challenging the proceedings issued by the superintendent of district HQ hospitals, Siddipet. The petitioner contended that the order passed by the superintendent erroneously denied payment for diet supplied by the petitioner to patients and doctors at the area hospital and MCH hospital, Siddipet, from 2008 to 2016. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were a non-speaking order issued without due consideration and in violation of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the order contravened the Telangana High Court’s earlier order in a writ plea where the court had directed the authorities to settle undisputed bills and communicate disputed amounts for further legal recourse. Despite the court’s directive, the respondents had failed to comply and wrongfully denied his payments, the petitioner said. He sought an immediate direction for the release of pending dues for the Aarogyasri diet supplies made by him. The matter is posted for further adjudication.
HC rejects plea against NPDC for faulty transformers
Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court rejected a writ plea filed by ECE India against the northern power distribution company (NPDC) in a matter related to the alleged faulty supply of transformers. According to the power distribution company, a transformer supplied by ECE India, which was under repair, was found to be short by 538 kg of copper. Senior counsel S. Ravi argued that the impugned notice had the effect of virtually blacklisting the petitioner. He also contended that the petitioner was not liable beyond the five-year guarantee period. However, senior counsel Vidya Sagar, appearing for the power distribution company, pointed out that since the petitioner was challenging a show cause notice, they could raise all their grievances in their reply to the notice and that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice. Agreeing with the respondent, the judge left it to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notices and closed the petition.
Plea against hospital for delaying IVF treatment
The Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the actions of Hegde Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for allegedly delaying an IVF treatment despite receiving a couple’s embryo sample. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka took on file a writ plea filed by a woman, who along with her husband approached the respondent hospital for IVF treatment. The petitioner alleged that despite collecting an embryo sample from her and her husband, the hospital was delaying and refusing to proceed with the IVF treatment, citing unnecessary reasons. The petitioner contended that the inaction of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal, and violates constitutional rights. The petitioner sought a directive compelling the hospital and the state authorities to proceed with the IVF treatment. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the judge directed the respondents to file a response and posted the matter for further adjudication.
