HC Division Bench to Hear Telangana Appeal on Kalyana Lakshmi, Shaadi Mubarak Stay

Hyderabad: A division bench of the Telangana High Court is set to hear the state government’s appeal on Tuesday against interim orders that stayed the implementation of the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak welfare schemes.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin, on Monday overruled objections raised by the High Court registry and directed that a case number be assigned to the state government's appeal. The directive clears the way for the division bench to hear the matter on Tuesday.

The issue stems from an order passed on August 12 by a single judge, who granted an interim stay on the implementation of eight government orders related to the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes. The single judge issued the stay after the state government failed to file its counter-affidavit in a petition brought by advocate Vijay Gopal in his personal capacity.

Following the issuance of the stay orders, the state government submitted its counter-affidavits before the court. However, the single judge was not inclined to immediately vacate the interim stay. This prompted the state government to file an appeal before the division bench to overturn the stay.

The appeal faced procedural hurdles after the High Court registry raised objections to assigning it a case number. On Monday, the matter was presented before the bench headed by Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh to resolve the registry's objections. The division bench overruled the objections and cleared the appeal for regular hearing.

During the proceedings on Monday, Advocate-General A. Sudarshan Reddy contended that the original writ petition filed by a private individual was not maintainable before a single judge. He submitted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any violation of rights and had suffered no personal prejudice as a result of the welfare schemes being implemented.

The Advocate-General further argued that the legal challenge essentially concerned government policy decisions. He contended that questions regarding the validity of welfare policies and executive decisions fall within the purview and jurisdiction of a division bench, rather than a single judge. The Advocate-General urged the division bench to take up the state's appeal against the interim stay orders passed by the single judge.