Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court struck down a ‘turnover’ eligibility condition prescribed in a tender issued by the HMDA for operation of a gymnasium and swimming pool at the Dr G.S. Melkote Park, Narayanguda, observing that the conditions did not have a rational nexus with the object of the tender. The writ petition was filed by Karangula Abhishek Reddy, erstwhile licensee of the gymnasium and swimming pool. It was contended that the facility was allotted to him under a 2017 tender at an annual licence fee of Rs.27 lakh for a period of five years, which was later extended till January 31, 2025. The petitioner challenged the condition in the fresh tender issued on August 19, 2025, which mandated a minimum annual turnover of Rs.15 crore in any one of the preceding three financial years.
He contended that the condition was introduced for the first time, was disproportionate to the licence fee involved, and effectively excluded him and similarly placed operators from participating in the bidding process. The respondents contended that the licence period of petitioner had expired and that he had no vested right to continue. Counsel for respondent would justify the turnover condition on the ground that it was intended to attract financially sound operators capable of upgrading and maintaining the facility to higher standards. Justice Vijaysen ruled that while the tendering authority has discretion to prescribe eligibility criteria, such conditions must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The judge found that fixing a `15 crore turnover requirement for a lease with an upset price of `10 lakh and a past licence fee of about `27 lakh was irrational and arbitrary. The judge also noted that the condition would confine participation to a few large players, thereby violating the constitutional guarantees of equality.
Pre-arrest bail for cheating accused
The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail to Kadari Anjaiah, accused of cheating and criminal intimidation in connection with a land transaction involving Rs.69.50 lakh. The petitioner is facing prosecution in a case registered by the Devarakonda police of Nalgonda district, for offences punishable under cheating, criminal breach of trust and others under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The case arose out of a complaint lodged by a mediator in a property transaction, alleging that the accused had agreed to purchase a plot for a total sale consideration of `69,50,000. It was alleged that on December 22, 2025, the accused assured the sellers and the mediator that the amount was kept at office of an associate and persuaded them to proceed with registration. After completion of the registration process, the accused allegedly deceived the parties, collected the cash along with the linked documents, pushed them aside, and fled from the office. The complainant alleged that when he attempted to contact the accused, he was threatened with dire consequences, compelling him to approach the police. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences alleged were punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, that the police had issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Opposing the plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the accused was not cooperating with the investigation despite service of statutory notice and that the prosecution intended to seek permission for his arrest. Counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant also opposed the grant of bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the alleged conduct of the accused. The judge observed that since the statutory notice under BNSS was issued it was a case for grant of pre-arrest bail, subject to conditions.
Writ filed against outgoing Bar Council members
Justice Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to state and all members of Bar Council of Telangana in a writ plea alleging multiple irregularities in disciplinary proceedings and passing of resolutions allegedly by the regulatory and statutory body after expiry of its term. Advocate A. Ushi Reddy, appearing as party-in-person, complained that the term of member of the Bar Council expired in 2020; however, its members were passing resolutions, signing minutes, and presiding disciplinary committee without any legal sanctity. The petitioner implicated all the members of the State Bar Council and alleged that they acted in contravention of the Advocates Act, 1961. It was the case of the petitioner the members had no authority to hold the officer subsequent to the elected period thereupon or to pass any resolution. It was alleged that the members were illegally entertaining false complaints from strangers and passing orders to earn ‘easy money’. The judge granted time the respondents to file their respective counter affidavits.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
