Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Friday, July 11, asked the state government to file a detailed reply on its move to shift the historic Osmania General Hospital (OGH) to the Goshamahal Stadium complex.
Notices were issued to top government functionaries from several departments and asked them to file counter-affidavits in four weeks.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Justice Sujay Paul and Justice Yara Renuka was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by one G Ramu.
The petitioner objected to the state action of relocating the hospital and building a new one on the premises of the Goshamahal Stadium, contending that the decision was taken unilaterally and against the Telangana Urban Development Act and the Master Plan of the city.
The attorney for the petitioner contended that the alienation of land owned by the stadium was not transparent and involved no public hearings. He asserted that such a move should be subject to planning principles and policies of development instead of official discretion.
Osmania General Hospital: A heritage structure in limbo
The Osmania General Hospital (OGH), a colonial-era structure built in the early 20th century, has been at the centre of debates for years over its crumbling condition. While heritage activists argue for restoration due to its architectural significance, government authorities have repeatedly cited structural instability and public safety concerns as reasons to demolish and rebuild the hospital elsewhere.
Over the past few years, the government has floated several proposals to modernise the current hospital or to relocate it altogether. The latest proposal to move it to the Goshamahal Stadium has attracted biting criticism from civil society, heritage activists, and now legal observers.
Several departments under court’s scrutiny
Notices have been issued to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretaries of Municipal Administration, Home, Health, and Tourism Departments, Special Principal Secretaries of Roads & Buildings and Finance, and GHMC and HMDA. The court directed each department to make clear its respective roles in the decision-making process.
The bench granted four weeks’ adjournment and directed all respondents to submit their replies by the next hearing.
