Disposed

Pati Bhikshapathy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Jun 2015WP/10964/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while hearing a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Election Commission in convening the first meeting of the Mandal Parishad and electing officers, directed the respondent to file a response by a specified date and advised posting the connected petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 to file response by 27.04.2015; Connected W.P. No. 27859 of 2014 to be posted on 27.04.2015.

Pati Bhikshapathy Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶5

WP .NO: 10964 of 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Pati Bhikshapathy s/o Posiah

¶8

2 Sagavath Meena w/o Venkatesh

¶9

3 Madavath Ramdas s/o Surya,

¶10

4 Ajmeera Vasantha w/o Badru

¶11

5 Konakanchi Basanthi Devi, w/o Sreenu,

¶12

6 Bhukya Bheemla s/o Krishna

¶13

7 Valluripalli Vamsikrishna s/o Laxmi Prasad

¶14

8 Totamalla Saritha w/o Suresh

¶15

9 Venkateswarlu s/o Pulliah

¶16

10 Godavarthi Malini w/o Narasimha Murthy

¶17

11 Thummala Punnamma w/o Ramu

¶18

12 Anthoti Sunitha w/o Ramesh

¶19

13 Chintha Koteswari w/o China Konda Reddy

¶20

..... Petitioners

¶21

AND

¶22

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶23

2 The Telangana State Election Commission, rep by its Election Commissioner, Buddha Bhavan, Secunderabad.

¶24

3 The District Collector & District Election Authority, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶25

.....Respondents

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction or a writ more particularly one in the form of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents in convening the first meeting of the Mandal Parishad of Burgampahad mandal, Khammam district, and/or not electing the president and vice president for the Mandal Praja Parishad as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the very spirit of the constitution to strengthen the local bodies and gross violation/infraction of the Provisions of The Panchayat Raj Act consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith convene the meeting and conduct the election of president and vice president of the Mandal Praja Parishad.

¶27

The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj (TG) for Respondent Nos.1 & 3, and Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent, the Court made the following

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The case of the petitioners is that they are elected as members of Mandal Praja Parishad of Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. While so, the 2^nd respondent has not convened the 1^st meeting as on today though several representations are made with regard to the same.

¶30

Contd…2/P

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a connected writ petition i.e., W.P.No.27859 of 2014 which is required to be heard along with this writ petition.

¶32

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri V.V.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent seek time for getting instructions.

¶33

When the petitioners are issued certificate of declaration of election, I do not see any reason as to why the 2^nd respondent has not convened the 1^st meeting. With regard to the same, the 2^nd respondent is file its response by 27.04.2015.

¶34

Post on 27.04.2015 along with W.P.No.27859 of 2014.

¶35

Communicate the above order to the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

For ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶39

¶40

1 The Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶41

2 The Election Commissioner, Telangana State Election Commission, Buddha Bhavan, Secunderabad. (By Spl. Messenger)

¶42

3 The District Collector & District Election Authority, Khammam District, Khammam.

¶43

4 One CC to Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶44

5 Two CCs to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj (Telangana), High Court, Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶45

6 One spare copy.

nnr

HIGH COURT

ARR,J

DATED: 23-4-2015

NOTE: Post on 27-4-2015 along with WP NO.27859 of 2014

¶51

ORDER

¶52

W.P.NO. 10964 OF 2015

¶53

DIRECTION

¶54

HIGH COURT

¶55

Nnr Date of Drafting : 24-04-2015

¶56

ARR,J

¶57

DATED: 23-4-2015

¶58

NOTE: Post on 27-4-2015 along with WP NO.27859 of 2014

¶59

ORDER

¶60

W.P.NO. 10964 OF 2015

¶61

DIRECTION

Pati Bhikshapathy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pati Bhikshapathy v. The State of Telangana

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/s Mansoorabad Welfare Association, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Anwar Zeenathullah Shareef s/o Late Manzoor Shareef Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Aditya Homes Pvt., Ltd, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Severage Board

Tamatam Vijaya Kumar Goud Vs The State of Telangana

V.Dastagiri ,Dudekula Vannurappagari Dastagiri, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Nayeem Vs The State of Telangana