Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court ruled that registration of multiple FIRs on the same incident was impermissible and subsequently quashed two out of three FIRs. He permitted the complaints and witness statements recorded in the two FIRs to be treated as part of the case registered against several residents of Bala Naik thanda, Rotibanda thanda, Pulicherlakunta thanda, at Lagcherla village, Vikarabad, in connection with an attack on government officials during a public hearing. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ pleas filed by M. Raju and five others, all arising out of the same incident on November 11, 2024, involving an attack on the Vikarabad district collector, special officer, KADA, and other officials. It was pointed out that the date, time, location, and the main allegations were all identical across all complaints. Counsel for the petitioner argued that, based on a single incident, the registration of multiple crimes was impermissible under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contended that registering multiple FIRs for the same cause of action would amount to an abuse of process. While the government pleader contended that the victims, accused, and specifics varied, the judge noted that there was commonality, and that the damages and injuries reported were related to a single transaction.

HC clarifies on pleas on pvt parties

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal and reiterated that writ petitions were not maintainable against private entities where the element of public law was lacking in the dispute. The panel comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Gowripaga Albert Lael. Earlier a plea was filed before a single judge to remove trustees and directors of Operation Mobilisation India and related charitable institutions and appoint administrators to oversee their operations. The appellants argued that the entities, though private, were performing public duties, making them amenable to writ jurisdiction. The panel upheld the single judge’s decision, stating that the reliefs sought were rooted in private disputes and lacked the requisite public law character. The panel pointed out that apex court in a catena of judgments had delineated the boundaries of writ jurisdiction against private bodies. The court noted that the institutions in question neither received state aid nor were under pervasive government control, negating the appellants’ claims. Additionally, the panel highlighted the availability of alternative remedies under statutes like the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the principles of res judicata, as similar reliefs were earlier denied by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

Landowner asks IOCL to exit

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the continued occupation of leased premises by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) despite the expiry of the lease. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Gummadi Yadi Reddy, a 72-year-old agriculturist and businessman from Rajendranagar, who sought a direction to the IOCL to vacate his property situated at Katedan, Rangareddy district. The petitioner contended that the lease was granted through a registered deed of March 2005, for a period of 20 years, which expired in March 2025. Despite the expiry of the lease term and notices issued in January, September and December 2024, the respondents failed to vacate the premises. The petitioner claimed that the IOCL’s continued possession was arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of his constitutional right to property. Opposing the plea, IOCL standing counsel submitted that the lease was for 25 years and would expire in 2030. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the extension clause was conditional and would apply only if the lessor agreed, which in this case, he did not. Taking note of the submissions, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further hearing after the summer vacation.

Plea seeks quick LRS processing

Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the commissioner of Thumkunta municipality to promptly process Land Regularisation Scheme (LRS) applications. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by Chappati Murali Mohan and others, challenging the prolonged inaction of the official in considering the LRS applications in respect of open plots at Anthaipally. Counsel for the petitioner Dinesh Chakrawarty argued that the failure of municipality was a blatant violation of multiple government orders — GO Ms. No. 131 dated 31.08.2020, GO Ms. No. 135 dated 16.09.2020, and the newly issued GO Ms. No. 28 dated 20.02.2025 — all pertaining to the LRS-2020 scheme. Counsel requested the court to direct authorities to intimate the applicable regularisation charges or pro-rata open space charges before April 30, 2025, enabling them to avail the 25 per cent rebate under the scheme. Standing counsel for the Thumkunta municipality said the subject plots were allegedly covered under the prohibitory list maintained under Section 22-A of the Registration Act. Counsel for petitioner refuted the allegation. Taking a considered view, Justice Vijaysen Reddy issued interim directions, instructing the Thumkunta municipality to process the LRS applications and initiate the calculation of regularisation charges before April 30.