Telangana High Court seeks site plans of OGH building

Source:-telanganatoday

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Raghvender Singh Chauhan and Justice B Vijaysen Reddy, on Monday summoned for the site plans for construction of Osmania General Hospital as well as the plan of the existing building in order to ascertain the available space for the proposed new building. There are two sets of contentions before the High Court in various PILs. One set is seeking restoration of old buildings and its conversion to heritage structure while the other wants construction of a new multistoried building with all superspeciality hospital facilities in the place of the existing hospital. The matter will be heard on September 8

Relief sought
The panel also adjourned to Tuesday for detailed hearing a PIL complaining of failure to implement the National Disaster Management Minimum Standard Relief in providing drinking water, food, shelter, medical cover, sanitation and ex gratia to the people of flood-affected areas in the State. The matter came up on Monday. Petitioner Cheruku Sudhakar also canvassed the need for providing compensation to farmers and people whose fields and domestic articles were badly damaged in floods affecting various districts, including Mulugu, Jayashankai Bhoopalpally, Peddapally, Asifabad, Komarambheem, Adilabad, Bhadradri Kothagudam, Warangal Urban, Warangal Rural, Mahabubnagar, Nagarkurnool and Hyderabad, in addition to the ongoing pandemic.

Panel lauds govt’s financial aid to lawyers
A two-judge panel, comprising Justice P Naveen Rao and Justice Dr Shameem Akhtar, declared that the restriction of financial assistance to advocates having maximum of 10 years of practice as arbitrary and discriminatory. It consequently directed the trust constituted by the government for the purpose to extend the financial assistance without reference to the prescribed maximum 10-year period. The State government decided by an order in May 2020 to provide financial assistance to needy advocates and advocates’ clerks and released a sum of Rs 15 crore. The operating trust stipulated certain guidelines. Rapolu Bhaskar, a practising lawyer, challenged the guidelines.

In their verdict, the panel pointed out that though various issues were raised, arguments were restricted to the 10-year cap. Additional Advocate General N Ramchander pointed out that the sanctioned amount was a proactive step taken by the government in view of the pandemic and did not create any new right among the professionals in the community. “It cannot be said that only advocates with ten years standing are put to hardship. The hardship can be felt across the board, unless an advocate has already established good practice, created office infrastructure and made savings before the pandemic surfaced,” Justice Rao said. The panel also pointed out that it did not see any illegality in the procedure prescribed. “There is no requirement in law for the State government to provide financial assistance to lawyers. As independent professionals, lawyers have to take care of their financial requirements on their own. Therefore, the decision of the State government to sanction Rs 25 crore to provide financial assistance to the needy advocates is appreciated,” the panel said while disposing of the writ petition.