Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice N. Narsing Rao ordered notice to Telangana High Court Advocates Association [THCAA] in a writ plea challenging action of High Court in allowing the issuance of the proximity cards through the private and non-statutory body. The panel is dealing with a writ petition field by R Vivekan. It is the case of the petitioner that THCAA is collecting Rs. 400 for the proximity cards which is exorbitant and arbitrary. It was contended that the High Court premises being the public property, only the concerned statutory authority can grant permission to anyone enter or exit the High Court premises and no-one else. The petitioner sought for a direction against the Registrar Protocol to immediately take measures to stop issuance of proximity cards through THCAA. The petitioner further sought a direction to declare the ID Card of the Telangana Bar Council, or any State Bar Council issued to any Advocate be considered to allow ingress or egress of an Advocate into the High Court, as an Advocate is allowed to practice anywhere in the Country under section 30 of the Advocates Act 1961. It was further pointed out that if the Registrar General or their officer’s intent to collect a fee for the issuance of proximity card, then it be collected only subject to any rule/regulation made by the State through legislation or the rule made by the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The panel directed the respondents to file their counter and posted the matter to September 22.

Chaitanya Education Trust gets relief in eviction suit

Justice G. Radha Rani allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed by M/s. Sri Chaitanya Educational Trust and set aside an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kodad which directed eviction of the educational institution and cancellation of a registered lease deed, citing statutory precedence of registered documents and limitation law. The judge ruled that when a registered lease deed exists, it overrides an unregistered agreement under the scheme of the Registration Act. The CRP was filed against two landowners who sought eviction of Educational Trust and the cancellation of a registered lease deed. The petition arose from a dispute between the landowners and the Trust, which was running an educational institution in Kodad, Suryapet District. The plaintiffs leased out a G+3 commercial building to the Trust under an agreement, and a subsequently registered lease deed was executed for the purpose of obtaining government permissions. The plaintiffs alleged that the registered lease was fraudulently executed by the Trust by misrepresenting the monthly rent as Rs 10,000 instead of the agreed amount of Rs 1,81,828, thereby evading stamp duty and misleading the government. They sought cancellation of the lease deed, eviction, and damages of Rs 5 lakh per month for unauthorized use post-termination. The Trust contested the suit, arguing that the registered lease deed was valid until 2029, and that any claims of fraud or misrepresentation were barred by the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The judge observed that the plaintiffs, being educated and fully aware parties, could not later disown the registered lease deed under the plea of non est factum. Since the eviction notices were based solely on the unregistered lease agreement, the judge held that the eviction suit itself was not maintainable. It was further held that clever drafting cannot override statutory limitation, and allowing such a suit to proceed would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

HC Hears Plea On Be Intake Refusal

Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the refusal of authorities to permit restored intake in B. Tech Civil and EEE courses for the 2025–26 academic year. The judge is hearing a writ petition filed by Kakatiya Educational Society and Kodad Institute of Technology and Science for Women, seeking recognition of 120 seats each in the said courses. The petitioners would contend that the action of the authorities was arbitrary and that the institution was entitled to be treated as validly affiliated. The counsel for the petitioners pointed out that all required permissions had been obtained and the institution was entitled to be treated as validly affiliated and approved for all its courses, including the restored intake. The judge directed the respondents to file their response and posted the matter for further hearing.

HC Quashes FIR in Hospital

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal prosecution against ten accused individuals, including a doctor managing a reputed private hospital in Warangal, on the ground that the complaint was largely civil in nature. The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging serious criminal conduct amidst a longstanding family dispute. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Toutireddy Narsinga Reddy and nine others seeking to quash the criminal case filed by the complainant, the younger brother of accused No. 1 and a co-partner in the family-run Jaya Hospital. According to the complaint, the accused allegedly misappropriated funds, denied access to hospital records, and committed theft of important documents and cash. It was further alleged that the complainant was wrongfully restrained and threatened by the accused, who also insulted him in connection with a dispute over ancestral properties. The FIR included various IPC sections such as wrongful restraint, cheating, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, theft and criminal intimidation. However, the judge found the dispute to be predominantly civil in nature. A partnership deed governed the management of Jaya Hospital and included an arbitration clause for resolution of internal disputes. The complainant also filed a civil suit seeking partition and separate possession of family property, which remains pending. The judge observed no specific allegations against the accused to substantiate the offences under the cited IPC sections. The judge further observed that there was no evidence of actual restraint, cheating, or theft. Similarly, no details supported claims of obscene behavior or criminal intimidation. Citing the Supreme Court ruling the judge reiterated that criminal proceedings must not be used to settle civil scores. The judge held that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and continuing the case would amount to an abuse of legal process and accordingly allowed the criminal petition.