Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a batch of criminal appeals filed by food business operators from Nalgonda district against penalties imposed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, for storing and selling prohibited tobacco products. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was dealing with the appeals filed by P. Lakshmi Narasaiah and others. The appeals arose from proceedings initiated after food safety authorities conducted inspections in 2021 following a state
Tenants locus to challenge illegal constructions questioned by HC
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court raised doubts on the maintainability of a writ plea filed by a tenant alleging inaction against an illegal construction in the neighbouring property. The petitioner, A. Vijaya, tenant of a premises, filed a writ petition seeking action against an alleged unauthorised structure at Moosapet in Kukatpally. The judge observed that if the petitioner, being a tenant, was aggrieved by the surroundings, she could vacate the premises. The judge asked whether the building in which she was residing was constructed with all required permissions and in accordance with the law. The judge questioned why the owner of the building was not made a party and why the tenant was prosecuting the proceedings. Observing that those who approach the court must come with clean hands, the judge directed the authorities to inspect both sites and report any illegalities, including in the construction in which the petitioner was residing. The petitioner sought time to implead the owner. The judge permitted her to implead the owner either as a joint petitioner or as a respondent and posted the matter for further hearing.
HC admits HUL writ, grants interim stay
The Telangana High Court stayed further proceedings initiated by the labour Appellate Authority against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) under the Telangana Shops and Establishments Act. Justice Renuka Yara was dealing with a writ petition filed by the company. According to the petitioner, the appellate authority proceeded to pass the impugned order in disregard of the statutory framework governing the appellate remedy and without appreciating the legal consequences arising from non-compliance with earlier directions within the mandatory period of 30 days.
Such non-compliance, according to the petitioner, rendered the second appeal infructuous. The company sought issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order and a consequential direction to hear and dispose of the main appeal on merits. A caveator entered appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent, contending that substantial dues amounting to about ₹60 lakh were pending against the petitioner. HUL contended that nearly ₹41 lakh had been paid and placed material on record evidencing such payments for the perusal of the court. The judge accordingly adjourned the matter for further hearing.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
