Court Allows Tech Colleges to Collect Fee from Students
Hyderabad: Justice J. Sreedevi of the Telangana High Court on Thursday allowed the management of various private engineering colleges to temporarily collect fees from candidates under SC, ST, BC, EWS and MC categories. The judge is considering 10 written arguments filed by the Association of Professional Accredited Engineering Colleges and others. The administrations were up in arms against the state government for failing to fulfill its commitment to pay millions of rupees towards outstanding tuition fees.
The government made it mandatory for institutions to accept students from specified categories with the promise to pay tuition fees. The government later amended the order banning colleges from collecting fees directly from students, stating that it would pay the institutions. In an earlier round of litigation, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court; wherein the government agreed to pay the fees due for the three-year period due and assured that it would pay the fees regularly thereafter.
Speaking on behalf of the institutions, senior advisor Avinash Desai pointed out that non-payment of amounts has almost sabotaged managements’ ability to effectively exercise their right to manage educational institutions. He argued that managements should be given free rein to collect fees amounting to more than one crore. He noted that previous orders from the court and contempt proceedings had been met with stoic indifference. Another senior consultant of Keshav Memorial Institute of Technology argued that even reputed institutions are paralyzed. He stated that over 50 billion in revenue will be paid to the institution. Tarun Reddy, who appeared on stage for many universities, pointed out how compulsory expenses and legal requirements disrupt the financial balance of institutions. He said that the government, which had taken responsibility and forced the management to admit the students, could not allow it to fail to fulfill its responsibility. Allegedly, the dues of various institutions were approximately over Rs 1,000 Million.
JH coop Housing body polls stalled
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court postponed the Jubilee Hills Cooperative Housing Society elections. The judge granted the interim orders in the form of written arguments filed by MN Shastry and others. The petitioners, through senior advocate DV Sitaram Murthy and A. Venkatesh, pointed out many irregularities in the voter list. They argued that an inaccurate voter list would affect the final result and make a mockery of the democratic process. Members removed from the voter list cannot be followed, do not attend general assembly meetings, etc. Complaints were expressed with justifications. It was further alleged that the dismissal in question was unilateral and therefore contrary to the principles of natural justice. Another superficial writ petition was filed seeking the inclusion of some members, contrary to the directions given by the Supreme Court in October 2024. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have filed a petition against the Court of Appeals IV in violation of the directions of the High Court. He claimed that Phase Manchiruvala members were added to the voter list. After hearing the parties, Justice Nanda stayed the election process as an interim measure.
2. Objection to residence permit
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition challenging the issuance of second round of tenure certificates (ORCs) under the AP (Telangana District) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, in respect of land in Mankhal of Maheswaram mandal in Rangareddy district. The judge was dealing with a plea filed by Ponakala Nagarajakumari challenging the March 5 order in which private parties were granted ORCs for their lands in Survey No. 845. The petitioner argued that the action was illegal and arbitrary because the land in question was under earlier tenure rights, making the later grant an unacceptable example of “ORC instead of ORC.” Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the earlier interim order of the court which observed that consecutive issuance of ORCs cannot be sustained. It has been claimed that the decision in question violates the legal order of the Law on Abolition of Trust and violates the articles of the Constitution, apart from directing the cancellation of existing income inflows in favor of the plaintiff. The judge directed the relevant state and revenue officials to submit their responses within a week.
