Discoms Challenge Regulation 9(7) in High Court
Haydarabad: Two Judge Pales of the Supreme Court of TaLANgana accepted the requests of a writer who challenged the legality of 9 (7) of the regulations of the Central Electrical Establishment Commission (Deviation Settlement Mechanism and related issues). A panel of his deputy Justice P. Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was a writing opened by the Southern Power Distribution Company of TaLangana Limited and the Northern Power Distribution Company of TaLangana Limited. The petition holders argued that the regulation on the procedure of recovery of wages in case of deviation and auxiliary service (DAS) is open in the pool account 9 (7), arbitrary, ultra vires and responding authorities. The petitions claimed that the participants did not have the authority to save the deficits in the DAS pool account from them, especially in places where such deficits could not be attributed to other identified inter -state transmission system customers (DICS). For the petitions, the lawyer, Kerala and Madras pointed out that similar arrangements have been appealed before the high courts and said that both courts provided temporary protection. The panel directed the additional lawyer general to receive instructions for the Indian Union and sent it to Friday.
HC, the abolition of the lawyer from BCI Rolls
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Supreme Court of TaLangana remained in the disciplinary procedures initiated against a defender and observed that the action was foreseen and removed it from the rolls of the TaLangana Bar Council. The judge was notified that a writer opened by Sunkara Naresh, a defender of the TaLangana Bar Association, was published on the grounds that they had violated the Law of Lawyers, Indian Bar Association and Constitutional Protects on July 1. The petition owner sent a letter that was duly accepted by the authorities on June 3, and claimed that he voluntarily suspended the application. Without giving any chance of the response to the demonstration notification, the Bar Council reflected the status of “removed” on the website until 10 June before any final determination. The senior lawyer, who emerged as a petition, argued that the trial was arbitrary, disproportionate and revived by Mala Fides. Noting that the petition was reflected even before responding, the judge observed that Prima Facie had predetermined the action. The judge published the issue for more hearing three weeks later.
PUB owners get bail in the drug case
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Supreme Court of TaLangana, Broadway Pub and Quak Pub in a lawsuit recorded by the Tahangana Anti-Marotics Office gave bail to Haydarabad owners. The judge felt a quash petition opened by the defendants on a criminal offense number 2025 and claimed that they had emerged based on a common confession statement. Lawyer E. Venkata Siddhartha represented by the petition owners, claiming that there was no independent or legally acceptable evidence to justify their arrest or custody inquiry. It has been suggested that the allegations are not supported by the supportive material and that trust in a common statement is contrary to the law specified by the Supreme Court. After examining the record, the judge observed that the alleged crimes were punished for up to seven years and that Bharatia Nagarik Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), who provided protection against unnecessary arrest and detention in such cases, found it suitable for relief. The judge’s order received support from the principles put forward by the Supreme Court in ‘Arnesh Kumar / Bihar Province’. Accordingly, the judge expanded the petitions with bail.
No tender, no transparency: HC
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Supreme Court of TaLangana, two buildings given for central lighting and advertising infrastructure, put aside the Business Transfer (BOT) contract and Radial Road No. Violation of transparency and fair procedure principles on the 30 extension. The Judge was dealing with a writing opened by team advertisements, and without the public procurement process, the government agreements granted through special negotiations were unacceptable in law and claimed that they violated the Constitution. The owner, a registered partnership company, challenged the giving of the lighting agreement to the unofficial response without any public notification or tender through 2024 Mous. The judge said that the first company received a contract for two ways, and that the second contract for the radial road 30 was given to a different organization on the grounds that there is no performance without the opportunity to report or hearing. The judge emphasized that the state cannot distribute Largesse in the capri and that it should provide transparency and equality in giving public contracts. The judge observed that such contracts should be a public auction or an open tender with a broad presentation in the newspapers. The judge, who called the defendant officials arbitrary and illegal, suppressed MOU and led the government to launch a new tender process for the Radial Road Extension Project 30.
