Quashed

G. Jaya Prakash, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC19 Jun 2013PIL/285/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that while the notification was published in the required gazette, it failed to provide the mandatory seven-day period for public objections as per Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules 1996, rendering it non-compliant.

What did the court decide?

All preliminary notifications were set aside; the Municipal Corporation was directed not to act on them and to issue fresh publication strictly in terms of Rule 8.

G. Jaya Prakash, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

P.I.L.No.285 of 2013

¶3

Date: 19.06.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

G.Jaya prakash and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

AND

¶8

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department represented by Its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and 4 others.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶11

P.I.L.No.285 of 2013

¶12

ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta )

¶13

This application has been filed by the petitioners challenging the preliminary notification dated 28.05.2013 issued in the newspapers inviting objections from the members of the public in the matter of delimitation of wards of Municipal Corporation concerned.

¶14

Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules 1996 reads as follows:

¶15

“The Commissioner shall cause the publication of the preliminary notification regarding delimitation of wards in Form I in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in Telugu, Urdu and English Newspapers besides displaying the notification on the notice board of all important Government Offices situated within the limits of the Corporation, duly calling for suggestions and objections from the public within seven days from the date of publication. Commissioner shall also place the said notification before the General Body of the Corporation for its suggestions and objections.”

¶16

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the text of the notification has to be issued in three different languages and the tenor of Rule 8 suggests so.

¶17

We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. We are of the view that the notification has to be issued in Form I in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and this Form I has been mentioned in English language and all that is required is that this notification has to be issued in that Form I in three separate newspapers. However, we agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for

¶18

the petitioners that in the impugned notification a clear seven days from the date of publication has not been given. We read the notices in all the notifications and find that the time given is less than seven days from the date of publication. It is settled law when the law requires that a thing has to be done in one manner, this has to be done in that manner alone and not otherwise.

¶19

Therefore, we set aside all these notifications and direct the Municipal Corporation concerned not to act upon pursuant to the aforesaid preliminary notification. We, however, give liberty to the Municipal Corporation concerned to issue fresh publication strictly in terms of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules 1996.

¶20

With the above observations, the Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition are closed.

¶22

K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶23

G.ROHINI, J

¶24

19.6.2013 Gsn.

G. Jaya Prakash, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Jaya Prakash, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Narasimha Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal

V.Veera Swami Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. a. Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Rama Rao S/o Late Veeranna, Vs The Government of India Rep by its

G.Hanumanth Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Karumanchi Prasanna Kumar, Vs The Election Commissioner

B. Goverdhan Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Thogati Veerabhadra Chary Vs Union of India rep. by its Secretary to Government