Allowed

Bukya Gopi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Jul 2019WP/15135/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a State Election Commission order that disqualified the petitioner as an ineligible electoral candidate for three years due to non-filing of election expenditure. The Court held the disqualification illegal as the election was held years prior, rendering the action arbitrary and violating natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order declaring the petitioner ineligible for elections was set aside, and the continuation of similar orders was closed.

Bukya Gopi Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15135 OF 2019

¶3

Date:22.07.2019

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bukya Gopi, S/o. Bukya, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-13-72, Indiranagar Colony, Kamareddy, Kamareddy District

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.15135 OF 2019

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Petitioner contested as Councilor to Ward No.7 of Kamareddy Municipality, Kamareddy District, in the elections held in the year 2014. Alleging that petitioner did not file election expenditure, order was passed on 12.06.2017 by the State Election Commission declaring the petitioner as ineligible for three years from the date of issue of that order to contest any election to be held for any office under the provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State Election Commission. Learned counsel appearing for State Election Commission agrees that subject matter of the writ petition is covered by the decision of learned single judge of this Court rendered in W.P.No.2630 of 2018 and batch on 20.03.2019.

¶16

From the reading of the order impugned, it is apparent that no prior notice was issued before passing such order and notice was not issued within reasonable time from the date of conclusion of election process.

¶17

In W.P.No.2630 of 2018 and batch, dated 20.03.2019, learned single Judge of this Court considered the issue in detail and held such action of the State Election Commission in disqualifying the candidates on the ground that they did not file election expenditure in the elections held in the year 2014 after long lapse of time as illegal, and amounts to arbitrary exercise of

¶18

¶19

power, and set aside the similar orders passed against the petitioners therein.

¶20

Following the earlier orders of this Court, this Writ Petition is also allowed by setting aside the order impugned. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶21

P. NAVEEN RAO, J

¶22

Date:22.07.2019 KH

Bukya Gopi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bukya Gopi 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

Kuntigoria Mounika Vs The Government of Telangana

M/s. Synthokem Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

B. Vasanthi Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Mohammed Khaja Rafeequdin Vs The Ramagunda Municipality (Godavarikhani Town)

Anjanayulu and 2 Others Vs The Government of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri Gandham Kranti Kumar Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, And Another