Dismissed

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Panchireddy Appalanaidu

Telangana HC16 Jul 2013WA/1109/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging an order suspending a memo directing elections to four Gram Panchayats. The Court held that since the Gram Panchayats remain independent due to a prior stay on their merger, they require separate elected administration, and the Election Commission has already notified elections.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of Memo dated 15-06-2013 upheld; Writ Appeal dismissed.

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Panchireddy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.1109 of 2013

¶4

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)

¶5

This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 03-07-2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.23109 of 2013 in W.P.No.18901 of 2013, wherein the learned Single Judge has found fault with the appellants in withholding elections to the Gram Panchayats vide Memo dated 1506-2013 on the ground that G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 04-022012, which was issued for merger of certain Gram Panchayats into Municipality, was suspended by this Court on 17-02-2012 in W.P.M.P.No.5385 of 2012 in W.P.No.4260 of 2012 and in view of constitutional mandate contained in Article 243E(3) of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge accordingly suspended Memo dated 15-06-2013 to the extent of four Gram Panchayats in Srikakulam Municipality i.e., Patrunivalasa, Kazipeta, Thotapalem and Kushalapuram in order to facilitate holding of elections to these Gram Panchayats along with other Gram Panchayats in the State.

¶6

The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that the four Gram Panchayats in question have to be merged with the Municipality by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 04-022012. Initially, when the said G.O. was issued for merging of certain Gram Panchayats into Municipality, the respondents herein and some others filed W.P.No.4260 of 2012 before this Court seeking to set aside G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 04-02-2012 along with

¶7

an application to suspend the operation of the said G.O. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 17-02-2012 in W.P.M.P.No.5385 of 2012 in W.P.No.4260 of 2012 suspended G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 04-02-2012 till the next date of hearing. Since the learned Single Judge has stayed merger of Gram Panchayats into Municipality till disposal of the writ petition and the issue is still pending for consideration, the appellants do not want to conduct any elections and therefore, the 1^st appellant has rightly issued Memo, dated 15-06-2013. However, the learned Single Judge erroneously suspended the said Memo.

¶8

We are unable to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants since it is the admitted case of the appellants that as on today, the said Gram Panchayats are not merged into Municipality because of the stay order dated 17-022012 granted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.5385 of 2012 in W.P.No.4260 of 2012 and hence, they are independent Gram Panchayats and they need administration by the elected Government. Unless and until these Gram Panchayats are merged into Municipality, they have to be treated as independent Gram Panchayats, particularly as the appellants have not made efforts to seek vacation of the interim order dated 17-02-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.5385 of 2012 in W.P.No.4260 of 2012. Moreover, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Election Commission has already issued Notification for conducting elections in the aforesaid Gram Panchayats also. Hence, the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge suspending memo dated 15-06-2013 cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to

¶10

costs.

¶11

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶12

appeal shall stand closed.

¶13

_______________ N.V.RAMANA, J

¶14

_______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶15

Date: 16-07-2013 Prv

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Panchireddy Appalanaidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Panchireddy Appalanaidu

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

J. Ramachandrappa Vs The Joint Collector

M/s.Surya Gangadhara Boiled and Raw Rice Mill, Vs The Andhra Bank

K.v.Ajay Kumar S/o. K.Venkataiah, Vs The Govt., of A.P.

Lankapalli Srinivasa Rao S/o Suryanarayana Vs The Assistant Director of Survey and Settlements

N.Apparao Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M/s Parameshwara Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.