By DC Correspondent

Copyright deccanchronicle

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Moinuddin on Tuesday took on file a suo motu public interest litigation on blasting operations in Jubilee Hills.The panel registered the PIL on the basis of a news report of August 26, last year, and a communication addressed by a judge of the court to the Chief Justice. The matter concerns unregulated blasting operations being carried out at the hillocks in and around the Nyay Vihar residential complex, where judges of the High Court reside. Earlier, the court noted that the blasts have become routine, causing tremors across the vicinity including Nyay Vihar, with operations reportedly carried out during the day and night, often at night by contractors. It is alleged that such unregulated blasting poses grave safety hazards and causes hardship to the residents. When the matter was taken up, the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the state, submitted that the Commissioner of Police is the competent authority and that permission had been granted to carry out the blasting. The panel impleaded the Commissioner of Police as a party respondent and directed the state to file an affidavit with relevant material explaining the steps taken by the Commissioner while granting such permission. The panel posted the matter to September 23 for further hearing. Diet services given to Mahila Samakhya challenged Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the order of state health department in entrusting diet services in government hospitals exclusively to Mahila Samakhya organisations. The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by T. Narasimha Rao and four other diet contractors who contended that the proceedings issued in May 2025 by the Director of Medical Education and the Commissioner of Health are illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of government rules. The petitioners further contend that the orders are in direct violation of government rules of November 2011, as well as the Telangana State Financial Code. The petitioners argued that the arbitrary decision to assign diet service provision solely to Mahila Samakhya organisations violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners prayed that the impugned proceedings be set aside, and a consequential direction be issued to the respondents to conduct an open and transparent tender process for awarding diet service contracts, in accordance with existing rules and fair competitive practices. The government pleader challenged the maintainability of the writ plea. The matter is posted for further hearing. Places of worship in residential areas questioned Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the action of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and other state authorities in failure to demolish alleged illegal and unauthorised religious structures raised in a residential layout at Rajendranagar. The judge is hearing a writ plea filed by A. Madhava Reddy and 10 other residents of Rajendranagar. The petitioners contended that a mosque and churches were constructed without obtaining prior permission from the competent authorities. The petitioners contended that the religious structures are being run by private parties without sanction in violation of the law. They alleged that such constructions in a purely residential area have caused disturbance and severe hardship to the residents. It is further argued that the authorities have failed to act despite complaints, rendering the failure arbitrary and in violation of the Constitution. The judge ordered notices to respondents. No retrospective promotions, rules HC Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ruled that seniority and promotion benefits cannot be granted retrospectively unless explicitly permitted by service rules. The judge dismissed a writ plea filed by a group of Secondary Grade Teachers seeking retrospective approval of their promotions to the post of School Assistant in aided schools. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by P. Vijaya Lakshmi and three others. The petitioners argued that their promotions, granted by the school management between 1999 and 2002, should be recognised from the same dates rather than from July 2004 as approved by the competent authority. The petitioners claimed that their promotions were against clear sanctioned vacancies arising from retirements and that the delay in approval was arbitrary and unjust, causing loss of seniority, increments, arrears, and opportunities for further promotion to headmaster posts. However, the Regional Joint Director and the Director of School Education, contended that promotions in aided schools require due approval from the competent authority, in accordance with the Government Orders. The judge observed that no provision in the service rules provides for retrospective effect of…