Hyderabad: A two-judge vacation panel of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ appeal challenging an interim order permitting the Telangana Housing Board to proceed with an e-auction of a land parcel in KPHB Colony, Kukatpally. The panel comprising Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy was dealing with a writ appeal filed by BSR Infra, a registered partnership firm. The appellant had earlier challenged the e-auction notification issued on May 7 by the Housing Board in respect of Plot No. 2 at KPHB Colony, admeasuring 2,420 square yards. In the impugned order, the single judge refused to stay the proposed e-auction scheduled on May 29, observing that grant of stay at that stage could deprive the authorities of an opportunity to secure a fair market price for public property and may also result in potential loss to the public exchequer. The court permitted the auction to proceed without finalisation and clarified that any steps taken pursuant to the auction would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the refusal to suspend the auction proceedings, the appellant preferred the writ appeal before the vacation panel seeking intervention in the interim order and a direction to the Housing Board to not proceed with the auction. The panel observed that the appellant was protected by the order passed by the single judge, as the auction proceedings were made subject to the outcome of the writ petition, and directed the respondents to file their response in the matter.
No stay on Mulugu sand extraction
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao of the Telangana High Court, sitting in the vacation court, refused to grant interim suspension of permissions issued for large-scale sand extraction and de-siltation works in Mulugu district despite allegations of violations of environmental and tribal rights laws. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Komuram Ram Murthy and others. The petitioners challenged the proceedings issued in April 2026 permitting extraction of about 1.45 crore metric tonnes of sand and allotment of de-siltation works in areas including Ramanakkapeta, Wadagudem and Akinepally Mallaram in Mulugu district. It was contended that mandatory gram sabha consultations were not conducted as required under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The petitioners alleged that the authorities failed to comply with the Telangana sand mining rules, environmental safeguards and provisions of the WALTA Act before granting the permissions. Counsel for the petitioners argued that in the absence of immediate protection, nearly one crore cubic metres of sand would be extracted before the legality of the permissions was examined by the court. After hearing the parties and taking note of the urgency pleaded, the judge directed the state to file its counter affidavit and posted the matter to the reopening day after the summer vacation. The judge observed that if the state failed to place its counter on record, appropriate orders would be passed.
HC clarifies on what constitutes rape in consensual relationship
Justice N. Tukaramji of Telangana High Court ruled that a consensual relationship between two adults would not constitute the offence of rape merely because the relationship subsequently culminated in refusal of marriage, in the absence of prima facie material showing that the promise of marriage was false from the inception. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Thamburchi Manohar challenging the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal, dismissing his discharge application in a sessions case registered under the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, the accused developed physical intimacy with the de facto complainant on the assurance of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. The prosecution alleged that the relationship continued between 2017 and 2020. The petitioner contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature and that there was no material to establish that the alleged promise of marriage was dishonest or fraudulent at the inception so as to attract the offences alleged. Upon examining the complaint, statements recorded during investigation, call data records and other charge sheet material, the judge observed that the relationship continued over a substantial period and that both parties were adults and were maintaining regular contact. The judge observed that there was no specific material indicating that the alleged promise of marriage was false from the very beginning. Relying upon the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that breach of promise to marry, by itself, would not amount to rape unless consent was obtained on the basis of a false promise made without intention of fulfilment from inception. Holding that the foundational ingredients of the offences alleged were not prima facie made out, the court allowed the criminal petition, setting aside the order of dismissal of the discharge application and quashed all further proceedings in the sessions case.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
