NIMS to review sibling kidney transplant case

Hyderabad: Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court has directed NIMS Hospital in Hyderabad to immediately consider a kidney transplant case within seven days. days. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by a kidney donor and the recipient. The petitioners contend that the donor is the biological brother of the donee, a 300-year-old woman; however, their names in the Aadhar card do not reflect the same father’s name. The petitioner’s counsel T. Rahul contended that due to poverty, the sister was placed by the maternal aunt and therefore, the siblings’ surnames were different in their respective records. He submitted that to verify the biological relationship, the NIMS conducted a DNA-based HLA test, lymphocyte cross-match test, donor specific antibody test and many others and then issued a ‘certificate of genetic linkage’. The petitioner complained that even after scientific confirmation of the linkage between the siblings, the NIMS did not take any decision on the kidney transplant surgery. Rahul stated that the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, allowed any close relative to donate a kidney. The hospital, having confirmed that they were biological siblings, did not respond to the request to perform the surgery. However, the counsel appearing for the NIMS and the Ministry of Health suggested that the petitioner should undertake to the hospital regarding their relationship. The judge, therefore, directed the petitioner to undertake and further directed the hospital to immediately consider the petitioners’ case.

Social welfare officer of a residence requests reinstatement after acquittal

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court ordered the Commissioner, SC The Development Department and other authorities considered the application for reinstatement of one R. Mothya Naik, a Grade II Welfare Officer in a University Hostel, who was under dismissal after being acquitted in a criminal case. The learned Judge considered a petition by Naik, who challenged the action of the authorities in not considering his application for reinstatement despite his acquittal by the Telangana High Court in a criminal appeal. The petitioner alleged that the action of the authorities in not considering his applications for reinstatement was illegal and violated the Constitution. The petitioner contended that though the termination was based solely on the sentence, his services could not be terminated once the sentence was set aside. After hearing the petitioner, the learned Judge disposed of the petition after directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s applications and pass appropriate orders.

High Court to hear case of abuse of power under GHMC Act

Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took up an appeal challenging the action of GHMC in demolishing the boundary wall of the petitioners at West Kakatiyanagar, Malkajgiri. The judge was hearing an appeal filed by Annamma Koshy and Thomas Koshy. The petitioners alleged that the respondent authorities demolished the boundary wall of their residence, which was constructed 41 years ago, without any notice. The petitioners further alleged that the respondent authorities unlawfully interfered with their peaceful possession and enjoyment by invoking jurisdiction under Section 405 of the GHMC Act, 1955, which envisaged that the Commissioner may, without notice, remove anything erected, deposited, peddled or exposed for sale in contravention of the Act. The petitioner contended that the conduct of the respondent authorities was arbitrary and illegal. The judge, after hearing the petitioners, asked the government’s pleader to take instructions and posted the case after two weeks.

Contempt of court case against head of land administration in development case.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court has ordered notice to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (full additional charge) and another in a contempt case. The judge was hearing a contempt case filed by Koukuntla Janaki, tahsildar of Charminar mandal. The petitioner alleged that the authorities had deliberately failed to comply with the court orders. Earlier, the judge had directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation for promotion under law to the post of Deputy Collector as was done in cases of persons similarly placed in other departments. The petitioner alleged that despite the orders, the respondents had not considered his representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the judge ordered notice and posted the matter for further adjudication.