Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the exclusion of visually impaired candidates from recruitment to the post of assistant public prosecutor in the State Prosecution Service. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by Koppula Sravan Kumar, advocate, questioning the validity of Rule 4(a) of the Telangana State Prosecution Rules, 1992, and Para 11(D)(ii) of the recruitment notification dated August 15 issued by the Telangana State-Level Police Recruitment Board. The petitioner contended that the rule arbitrarily excluded visually impaired and low-vision candidates. He contended that the exclusion was illegal, discriminatory, and in violation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Constitution. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment striking down similar disqualifications, he argued that a person who has obtained a law degree and was capable of performing professional duties could not be denied opportunity solely on the ground of visual disability. The petitioner argued that if persons with disabilities could serve as judges, there is no rational basis to bar them from the post of assistant public prosecutor. The panel directed the state to obtain instructions within three weeks. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the panel ordered that the petitioner be permitted to submit his application for the post and made it clear that his application would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
2. HC orders conditional release of rescued children
Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ plea filed by six parents seeking release of their minor sons from the Government Children Home for Boys, Saidabad. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Jihon Sekh and five others. The petitioners contended that their children were rescued by the Child Welfare Committee from a hazardous place of work and were being unlawfully retained at the home. It was contended that despite approaching the authorities, the children were not handed back to their custody. On behalf of the state, it was informed that 11 children were rescued and that those whose parents who produced valid identity proofs were released. It was contended that the petitioners had failed to submit such documents. Taking note of these submissions, Justice Madhavi Devi directed the authorities to verify the identity proofs submitted by the petitioners and, if found satisfactory, to release the children to their parents immediately.
3. Rowdy sheet against businessman quashed
Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court quashed a rowdysheet against a businessman after finding that the pending cases did not pertain to any breach of public peace or order, making its continuation unsustainable. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by businessman Ayub Khan challenging the actions of the deputy commissioner of police, south zone, Hyderabad, in opening and continuing the rowdysheet against him. The petitioner contended that out of 74 cases registered against him, he was acquitted in seventy-one, and the remaining three did not involve any breach of public order. The judge observed that two of the pending cases were connected matters arising out of a family dispute, while the third related to a civil dispute in which a suit was filed in March 2025. The judge quashed the rowdysheet while granting liberty to the police to act in the event of any future involvement warranting reopening of the rowdysheet.
4. HC quashes criminal case of civil nature
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a businessman accused of cheating and criminal intimidation in connection with a Rs.41-lakh hand loan. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Saley Mohammed seeking to set aside the criminal proceedings initiated against him. A complaint was filed by a businessman who alleged that the accused borrowed `41 lakhs in 2019 for business purposes and failed to repay it within the agreed period. The judge observed that the complainant and the accused knew each other since 2017 and that all payments were made through cheques between 2019 and 2020. The complaint was lodged only in December 2021, leading to an “unexplained and inordinate delay” in initiating criminal action. Justice Sridevi noted that the chargesheet did not establish dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction, a key requirement for invoking cheating under the IPC. The judge pointed out that no independent witnesses or bank officials were examined to confirm cheque encashment, and there was only a vague allegation of threats without evidence to support a charge of criminal intimidation. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the judge held that the case fell squarely under the category where allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute any offence. “The allegations, on the face of it, appear to be purely civil in nature,” the judge observed.
