Hyderabad: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Monday directed the State Organ Transplant Authorization Board to re-examine a kidney transplant plea. The bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao was dealing with a writ appeal filed by Anne Siva Ram. Earlier, the appellant filed the application challenging the commission’s rejection of his case for the approval of the kidney transplant. In the appellant’s case, he was to undergo a kidney transplant and although his family were prepared to donate a kidney, they were declared ineligible. Seeing his plight, his family friend Mondi Ravi volunteered to donate a kidney. The complaint of the petitioner is that the commission, on assumptions and presumptions, with a mere suspicion of an altruistic nature, rejected the application. The said rejection was challenged before the appellate authority constituted under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, which allowed the appeal, referred the matter to the commission for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto, it is contended that the commission passed the impugned order revealing non-application of mind. The Single Judge, while refusing to supersede the opinion of the Clearance Committee and set aside its decision, relied on written instructions and observed that “The Clearance Committee, after a careful consideration of the proposed case of donation, has clearly placed on record that the donor Ravi works for petitioner. , there is a large financial disparity between the donor and the recipient, the recipient has small children aged 8 and 6 and the committee is not convinced of the altruistic nature of the donation. Moreover, in the challenged process it is recorded that in the physical interview conducted by the authorization committee in the presence of doctors, no clarity was established regarding the love and affection towards the donor and the recipient. The commission was not convinced by the donation proposal after interviewing the donor.”

Ram argued before the bench that the impugned order is silent and without reasons and that the committee cannot improve its case by written directions by making fresh statements which are not included in the impugned order. Therefore, the committee remanded the matter back to the State Organ Transplant Licensing Committee for further consideration and to adopt the order within 10 days from today.

Tribunal cannot condone delay, says HC

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court set aside an order of the cooperative tribunal. He stated that the tribunal cannot rely on the Limitation Act to condone the delay in appeals filed before it under the Co-operative Societies Act. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by S. Tej Kumar. The petitioner and his wife are employees of BHEL and are in litigation regarding non-allotment of land to them in BHEL Housing Area for its employees. Earlier, the petitioner had challenged his non-inclusion in the list of members of the BHEL Cooperative Housing Society. A judgment was granted in his favor in December 2007. He sought its enforcement at the city’s Civil Court. The First Subordinate Civil Judge decreed the execution in October 2009. Following the award and execution, the petitioner also obtained authorizations in November 2009. An appeal was filed to set aside the sentence pronounced in 2007 with excessive delay. The cooperative court by the contested order condoned the delay which was appealed to the High Court. Setting aside the tribunal’s order, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka said the tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay taking cognizance of the Limitation Act. He said that the provisions of the Limitation Act empowering the grant of delay is a power vested in the civil court. The court not being a civil court could not have exercised such jurisdiction.

HC hears death penalty case in POSCO offence

Justice K. Surender and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court will hear a writ petition filed by the state seeking confirmation of the death sentence imposed on Gaffar Ali, a migrant laborer from Bihar for raping and killing a 5-year-old girl. The plea is filed to confirm the death sentence imposed on the convict by the Special Fast Track Court for Speedy Trial and Disposal of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) cases at Sangareddy under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (IPC) Section 302 of the IPC provides for the punishment of the crime. The five-year-old victim’s grandparents left their granddaughter with the babysitter on October 16, 2023, to go to work. On the pretext of offering the girl a soft drink, the intoxicated accused told the security guard that he knew the girl and had brought her with him. The accused later took her to a cotton field, raped her and then killed her with a knife after giving her a soft drink which was contaminated with alcohol. The POSCO Special Court (FTS) at Sangareddy found accused Gaffar Ali guilty and sentenced him to capital punishment. But the defense argued that although semen was found on the clothes, the DNA test did not prove that it belonged to the accused. Thus, it is argued that there is no record linking the semen to the accused. The panel posted the matter for further hearing.

5 decade plea admitted in HC

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court allowed a plea complaining of a five-decade delay in payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Dattari seeking compensation for the acquisition of land covering about 320 guntas in Zaheerabad village, Sangareddy district, acquired by the railway department in 1968. The petitioner claimed that the land belonged to to his father and was being acquired by the South Central Railway for building railway lines without paying any compensation. However, the petitioner did not present any document to prove its ownership. The judge questioned the lack of documentation, noting the absence of any claims made by the petitioner’s father during the original acquisition process in 1964-65 and only filing a statement in 2024. The judge also noted the unusual timing of the request. , highlighting the increase in real estate values ​​in recent years, which, as the judge pointed out, may have prompted the petitioner to seek damages now. The petitioner’s counsel sought additional time to gather relevant documentation to prove ownership of the land. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter for further trial.