HC Sets Aside HCA Ombudsman Order, Fresh Poll for Prez Post

Hyderabad: Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of the ombudsman of the Hyderabad Cricket Association (HCA) declaring Amar Nath, secretary of Galaxy Cricket Club, as president of the HCA and directed that a fresh election be held. The judge was dealing with two writ petitions filed by Jaganmohan Rao and Sagar Cricket Club, represented by its secretary Chatiri Babu, challenging the validity of the order of the ombudsman dated February 2, whereby Amar Nath was declared president of the HCA. The petitioners contended that the action of the ombudsman was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations governing the HCA. The HCA opposed the writ petitions, contending that an order passed by the ombudsman could not be challenged before the High Court and ought to have availed themselves of the remedy before the Arbitral Tribunal. After considering the submissions, the court set aside the order and directed the secretary of the HCA to convene a special general body Meeting for conducting a fresh election to the post of president in accordance with the governing Rules and Regulations of the Association. The court further directed that, until completion of the election process, the vice-president of the HCA shall exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the president in terms of the Rules and Regulations of the association.

HC reserves order on service road rule

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reserved its verdict on a challenge to Rule 4(f) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, which mandates provision of a minimum 10-metre-wide service road where a proposed layout abuts a National Highway having a width of less than 60 metres. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ petition filed by Konakanchi Spoorthi challenging the Rule(4), incorporated through Government Order dated February 26, 2002 as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. Counsel for the petitioner contended that landowners cannot be compelled to part with a portion of their private land for the purpose of a public service road as a precondition for obtaining layout approval. Counsel further contended that owners of lands falling under the regulatory framework of GHMC and HMDA are not subjected to such a requirement and that the obligation imposed under Rule 4(f) is not traceable to the rule-making power under the 2002 Rules. Counsel submitted that construction of service roads adjoining National Highways falls within the domain of highway authorities, and if land is required for such infrastructure, the state must acquire it through due process under land acquisition laws. Compelling a private owner to earmark and surrender land for a service road amounts to deprivation of property without authority of law and is contrary to constitutional rights. Opposing the plea, the government pleader for municipal administration and urban development department contended that the impugned rule does not provide for acquisition or resumption of any person’s land. It was contended that the requirement of leaving land for a service road is merely a planning condition attached to the grant of layout approval and forms part of the regulatory framework governing development permissions. The state argued that the rule operates only as a condition precedent for sanction of a layout plan and does not amount to compulsory acquisition of private property. After hearing the arguments, the panel reserved orders.

HC retains protection for Forever Living

Justice E.V. Venugopal of the Telangana High Court declined to vacate an interim order restraining coercive action against Forever Living Imports India Private Limited and its group companies in a writ petition challenging police action over allegations that their business model constitutes a pyramid scheme. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the company contending that it has been operating as direct selling entities since 2011, marketing wellness and health products through a network of distributors in accordance with consumer protection laws and regulatory guidelines. They argued that despite complying with the applicable legal framework, the police proceeded on the assumption that the business amounted to a pyramid scheme and issued notices to banks seeking the freezing of the company accounts. Earlier, the Court granted interim protection against coercive action. Opposing the continuation of the interim order, the State submitted that FIRs were registered against certain agents of the petitioner companies for allegedly making misrepresentations regarding the products. It argued that if the ongoing investigation reveals material warranting action against the companies, the interim protection could hamper the probe. After hearing both sides, the Judge noted that the petitioners expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and that they were not presently arrayed as accused in the criminal cases. Taking these circumstances into account, the Court declined to vacate the interim order at this stage and directed the State to file its response by next week.