Hyderabad:Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the denial of central armed police (CAP) reservation benefits to the son of an ex-serviceman from the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP). The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Kavali Laxminarayana, who contended that despite his voluntary retirement from ITBP in 2018, his son was not granted CAP reservation during the Eapcet. The petitioner referred to the Union ministry of home affairs’ official memorandum (November 23, 2012), which clarifies that ex-servicemen and their dependents are entitled to reservation benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that his son, who appeared for TS Eapect-2024, secured a rank of 36,557 but was denied reservation benefits under the ex-servicemen category. Earlier, the judge directed the respondents, including the secretary of higher education and the commissioner of Telangana State Council of Higher Education (TSCHE), to explain why the petition should not be admitted. Additionally, an interim order was passed, instructing the authorities to consider the petitioner’s son for CAP reservation benefits in accordance with the office memorandum, pending the final outcome of the case. During the hearing, the judge observed that a writ of mandamus cannot compel the state to include ITBP under the ex-servicemen category, as it is the prerogative of the state to make such inclusions. The government pleader sought one week’s time to file a response. Accordingly, the judge posted the matter after one week.
HC upholds interim injunction in favour of ‘Santosh Dhaba’
The Telangana High Court dismissed an appeal, upholding an interim injunction granted by a city civil court at Hyderabad, in favour of the trademark owner of ‘Santosh Dhaba’. Justice G. Radha Rani was dealing with a civil miscellaneous appeal involving allegations of trademark infringement by ‘Shree Santosh Family Dhaba’, operated by the appellant. The defendant, who has held the registered trademark ‘Santosh Dhaba’ since 2012, alleged that the appellant’s business name was deceptively similar and likely to confuse customers. It was argued that this constituted both infringement and passing off, potentially harming the reputation and goodwill of the original brand, which has been in operation since 2004. The appellant contended that the term ‘Santosh’ was generic and that over 25 establishments used similar names. Furthermore, the appellant pointed out procedural flaws in the case, arguing that the suit violated provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, due to non-compliance with mandatory pre-litigation mediation. The judge, however, emphasised the exclusive rights conferred by the defendant’s registered trademark and highlighted the deceptive similarity among the names. The judge applied the ‘Triple Identity Test’, considering the similarity of the trademarks, the identical nature of services provided, and the shared customer base. It was found that the appellant’s addition of words like “Shree” and “Family” to the trademark did not sufficiently differentiate the brand from the original. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the interim injunction remains in force, preventing the appellant from using the disputed name.
HC to continue to hear release of convict on parole
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court will continue to hear a writ plea challenging the actions of the Director General, prisons, and other authorities in not considering the release of a convict on parole. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Pangi Prasad, convicted for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities failed to consider his representation seeking parole for attending the final rites and pind daan of his paternal uncle and immersion of his ashes. The petitioner alleged that the actions of the respondent authorities are arbitrary and contrary to law.
Retired police officers demand all retirement benefits
Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging the actions of the finance department and others in not releasing retirement/pensionary benefits such as gratuity, commutation, encashment of earned leave and general provident fund, among others, to several retired police officers. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by V. Hanumanthu and 23 others, alleging that the respondent authorities had failed to release various benefits to the retired officers, despite their benefits being processed. The petitioners also alleged that the actions of the respondent authorities were illegal and in violation of the Constitution. They are seeking release and payment of the same with interest 18 per cent per annum. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, the judge directed the respondent authorities to file their response and posted the matter for further hearing.