Choose dog or brother, Telangana HC judge tells pet owner
HYDERABAD: In a unique ruling blending family law and animal welfare, the Telangana High Court ordered the return of a seized Labrador dog, named Aries, to its owner, but barred the dog from its own home.
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy's interim directive to GHMC came amidst bitter familial accusations, with the owner claiming illegal seizure after his brothers accused the pet of aggression and the judge asking the man if he preferred his 'best friend' or his brother.
Justice Vijaysen asked the GHMC to hand the dog back to its owner, Dakshinamurthy of Chikkadapalli, while cautioning that Aries must not be housed in an environment that could lead to further conflict. 'If you want a dog, go somewhere else. If you want a brother, transfer the dog elsewhere,' the judge remarked, alluding to the friction within the family.
The dispute began when GHMC officials, reportedly acting on police advice, seized Aries from the owner's home and moved the dog to the veterinary section in Secunderabad. Dakshinamurthy approached the court, alleging that the seizure was illegal, lacked prior notice and violated principles of natural justice. He claimed Aries was licenced and had been raised responsibly.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
HC dismisses plea to release person arrested under Preventive Detention Act-1986
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman Dharavath Laxmi of Warangal district seeking a direction to free her husband Dharavath Dhanisingh who had been arrested under the provisions of the Telangana Prohibition Act-1995 and Telangana Preventive Detention Act-1986. A bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B.R. Madhusudhan Rao said in its verdict that it did 'not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Preventive Detention order issued by the authorities on November 25 following which the petitioner's husband was lodged in prison'. Mr. Dhanisingh was accused of indulging in making and selling Illicitly Distilled Liquor (IDL). He was arrested more than three times while possessing IDL. Eventually, the Warangal District Collector passed an order for his detention leading to his arrest. Challenging this, his wife approached the HC. While dismissing the plea, the bench, however, said the arrested person cannot be kept in prison for an indefinite period on the pretext of ongoing investigation. 'The authorities concerned should ensure that the justice system is activated and sustained to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible and preferably by December 31, 2025,' the bench said.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Drive against footpath encroachments every Saturday
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is going to begin a weekly drive against footpath encroachments, especially by the commercial establishments. A circular has been issued to this effect by Commissioner R.V. Karnan on Thursday, which said the drive should be conducted every Saturday. Issued to Zonal and Deputy Commissioners and marked to the Chief City Planner, Additional Chief City Planners, and the City Planners, the circular also directed for the drive to be carried on a minimum of one stretch per circle every week, in a joint operation with the Traffic Police as part of the 'Operation ROPE' (Removal of Obstructive Parking & Encroachments). Under Operation ROPE, a large number of hawkers and vendors are already being removed from the road margins and footpaths. Recently, the displaced hawkers conducted a demonstration in front of the GHMC corporate office, demanding that the harassment be stopped. MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi, during a meeting, raised this issue and questioned if the GHMC wanted the vendors to become pickpockets. Officials assure that the new phase will not target the vendors but the commercial entities which occupied footpaths to install their extensions such as steps, sign boards, kiosks, poles and other such impediments. They are invoking the powers of the GHMC Commissioner under Section 405 to remove obstructions on the street, drain, channel etc. The objective is stated as having ease of traffic movement and facilitating pedestrian movement on footpaths. This is not the first time GHMC is taking up such a drive. A similar drive was taken up after establishment of Enforcement, Vigilance & Disaster Management wing as part of GHMC, in 2018. Armed with excavator machinery, the EVDM personnel destroyed not mere sign boards, but even the ramps and steps built onto the road & footpath portions. However, no attempt was made to build footpaths or roads on the reclaimed space. After a while, the shop owners rebuilt the steps or started using iron ladders instead.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC ends 16-year land row: Bholakpur slum status under review; collector told to act in 6 months, inform GHMC
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court has disposed of a long-pending dispute over a property located in Bholakpur, Secunderabad, originally filed in 2008, along with a connected contempt case from 2021. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court directed the Hyderabad district collector to conduct an inquiry under the provisions of the Slum Improvement Act and to complete it within six months. The court further directed the collector to issue a reasoned order, taking into account all relevant facts, and to communicate the same to the petitioners in both the writ and contempt petitions, as well as to GHMC for necessary action. The dispute concerns approximately 12,056 square yards of private land known as 'Ramaswamy compound,' of which 9,000 square yards were notified as a slum area in 1999. The writ petitioners, claiming to be absolute owners of the land, challenged slum notification. Meanwhile, the contempt petitioners contested the 2007 GHMC eviction orders and a 2016 HC direction to maintain status quo. They also claimed to have been in possession of land for several decades, while the 2008 petitioners stated they had already secured eviction orders under Rent Control Act. While the petitioners in the contempt case alleged unauthorised demolition on the disputed land, the advocate commissioner's report found no proof of such activity.
