Allowed

Eligeti Tirupathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Mar 2019WP/2070/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the Telangana State Election Commission and the State Government to hold fresh elections for the vacant post of President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Choppadandi, within three months, citing Supreme Court precedent mandating timely elections for local bodies.

What did the court decide?

Directed State of Telangana and Telangana State Election Commission to hold fresh election for President, Mandala Praja Parishad, Choppadandi, expeditiously but not later than three months.

Eligeti Tirupathi Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON NO.2070 OF 2019

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

The prayer of the petitioners in this case reads as under:

¶5

‘For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not taking any action for conducing election to the post of new President, Mandal Praja Parishad, Choppadandi, Karimnagar District, despite the fact that the ‘No Confidence Motion” was proved against the earlier President i.e. 9^th respondent was declared on 26/11/2018 and intimated the same to the 1^st respondent under the provisions of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.’

¶6

The no confidence motion against the 9^th respondent, the President of the Mandal Praja Parishad, Choppadandi, Karimnagar District, was approved unanimously on 16.11.2018 and the post fell vacant. The grievance of the petitioners presently is that steps are not being taken to conduct an election afresh to fill up the said post.

¶7

Despite the matter being adjourned thrice, the respondent authorities have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit.

¶8

In the light of the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court as long back as in the year 2006 in KI SHANSI NGH TOMAR V/ s. MUNI CI PAL CORPORATI ON OF THE CI TY OF AHMEDABAD¹ , it is not open to the election authorities to remain somnolent in holding elections. The Supreme Court observed in that case

¶9

1 (2006) 8 SCC 352

¶10

¶11

that the very object of introducing Part IX-A in the Constitution in relation to Municipalities was because local bodies were not working properly as timely elections were not being held, whereby nominated bodies were continuing for long periods of time. The aforestated observations would be equally applicable to Part IX-A of the Constitution relating to Panchayats. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforestated decision in relation to Article 243-U would also be equally applicable to Article 243-E relating to Panchayats. The mandate of the Supreme Court was that the Election Commission should try to complete elections on a time-bound basis.

¶12

In the case on hand, despite the President of the Mandala Praja Parishad, Choppadandi, Karimnagar District, being removed from office as long back as on 26.11.2018, it is an admitted fact that no steps have been taken to hold an election afresh to the said post. It is not open to the authorities and more particularly, the Telangana State Election Commission, to remain inactive in the matter.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the State of Telangana and the Telangana State Election Commission to initiate necessary measures to hold an election afresh to the post of President, Mandala Praja Parishad, Choppadandi, Karimnagar District, expeditiously and in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, be it from whatever source.

¶14

Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶15

_______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶16

19^th MARCH, 2019 Svv

Eligeti Tirupathi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eligeti Tirupathi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T. Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Yadavelli Varija Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. G. Vindhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Hussain Mirza Vs The State Government of Telangana

Chukka Ramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Next education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Trimurti Learning Services Pvt. Ltd.