Allowed

Sayyeda Ayesha v. Smt. Putta Shylaja (Shailaja)

Telangana HC1 Oct 2020CRP/677/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging the return of an Election Petition by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar. The Court held that under the relevant Rules, the Principal District Judge has jurisdiction to try election petitions when multiple District Judges exist in the district, absent a specific appointment of an Additional District Judge.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the admission stage; the order of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 10.03.2020 returning the Election Petition is set aside; the Judge is direct

Sayyeda Ayesha Vs Smt. Putta Shylaja (Shailaja) — Election Law | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G, SRI DEVI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 677 OF 2020

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the order dated 10-03-2020 in C.F. No. 556 of 2020 ( Un - numbered Election O.P. ) on the file of the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sayyeda Ayesha, Wo Syed Afroze, age 32 years, Occ Household, R/o H.No. 5-42, Marriwada, Manthani, Peddapally Dist. ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Smt. Putta Shylaja (Shailaja), Wo Putta Madhukar, age 44 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 7-50, Ward No.13, Manthani, Peddapally Dist.

¶11

Puppala Bhagya Laxmi, Wo P. Tirupathi age 35 years, Occ: Household Marriwada, Manthani, Peddapally Dist.

¶12

The State Election Commission, 1'elangana State rep. by the Commissioner Hyderabad.

¶13

The Collector-cum-District Magistrate and Election Officer, Peddapally Dist.

¶14

The Returning Officer, Ward No.2, Manthani Municipality lvlanthani, Peddapally . District. ...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Prl. District Judge, Karimnagar to lake the Election O.P. filed by the petitioner vide in C.F. No. 556 of 2020 on file, number and adjudicate the same, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. P. V. NAGAMANI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

TIIE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶21

Cl/lL REVISION PETITION No. 677 of 2020

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Civil Revision Petition is fited under Articte 227 of the Constjtut.ion of lndia, aggrieved by the c,r,ler, dated 10.03.2020 passed in C.F.No.556 of 207Q (Etection^,) P ) by the Principat District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the Etectron Petition O.P. fited under Sectron 233 of the Tetangana Municipatities Act, 2019 was returned.

¶24

The fac:'.; irr issue are as under:

¶25

The petitioner herein filed Etection O.P. under^'iection 233 of the Telangana Municipatities Act, 2019 read with luk:3 of the Tetangana Municipatities (Etection Petitions) Rutes, 20.10 before the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, seeking lhe foltowing reIiefs:

¶26

(1) to de,ctare the e[ection of the 1't resgrondent on 75.01 .2020 as Returned Candidate for Ward No. 2 of Manthani Municipality, Peddapatty District as void;

¶27

(2) to der:tare the 1't respondent as disquatifierd t': hotd the post of Chairperson of Manthani Municipality, Peddapatly District as her electic,n as Chairperson of Manthan'i Municipratity, is void and itlega[; and

¶28

<sup>}-"

¶29

¶30

(3) to dectare the petitioner as Returning Candidate for Ward No.2 of Manthani Municipatity, Peddapatty District.

¶31

The Office of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, has raised an objection stating that the District Judge was not having any territoriat^jurisdiction as the matter^pertaining to Manthani Municipatity, which comes under the territorial^jurisdiction of V Additionat District Judge, Godavarikhani and returned the said Election O.P. Thereafter, the petitioner re-presented the same before the learned Principat District Judge, Karimnagar, which was returned stating therein that the said Court is not having jurisdiction in view of G.0.Ms.No.346, Law (t.A. LE & J-Home Courts-C) Department, dated^{'16.02.20212.} Chattenging the same, the present Civit Revision Petition has been fited.

¶32

Since the case is not registered issuance of notice to the respondents is not necessary. Hence, heard the learned Counset for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the petitioner woutd submit that as per Rute 4 (a) and (b) of the Tetangana Municipatities (Etection Petition) Rutes, 2020, it is very clear that the Principa[ District Judge is onty competent to entertain the etection petitions as there are number of District Judges in the District. She further submits that the learned Principa( District Judge, Karimnagar, has erroneousty returned the Election O.P. without appreciating the rute position and prayed to a[tow the revision.

¶34

¶35

Befor,:: :roceeding furthelit woutd be retev,rnt to extract Section 233 of the Tetangana Municipatities Act, 2Cr1 ?, which reads as under:

¶36

"233. Election Petitions: (1) No etection lr€tc under this /\ct shatt be catted in^quest'ion exc(:F't by an etection petition presented to the Etection TricLrna[.

¶37

(2) The Government may specify a Court o' District Judge to be an Etection Tribunal to try tl'e etection petitions under this Act.

¶38

(3) The Tribunal shatt deat w'ith such petitions and proceedings in connection there with in the rnanner prescribed. "

¶39

Ru(e 4 ,rf the Telangana Municipatities (Ete c:ion Petitions)

¶40

Rutes, 2020, r,3ads as under:

¶41

"4. Election Tribunal : The Elect'ion Tribunal siratl be

¶42

(a) the District Judge having territoriaI^ju-isdiction over th€,Municipat area, or

¶43

(b) il there are more than one such District Jtrd3e, the Principai District Judge of the District."

¶44

Apart from that Rute 9 (1) of the Telangana lAunicipat'ites (Etection Petitions) Rules, 2020, every etect'ion pe:ition shatt be inquired into by the Etection Tribuna[ as near|.5, as may be in accordance with the^procedure appt'icabte to tl^e trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶45

¶46

From the above provisions, it is ctear that onty the Principat District Judge of the District witt get^jurisdiction to try the etections petitions under the Tetangana Municipatities Act, 2019. Though Section 11 (2) of the Te[angana Civit Courts Acl, 1972, confers powers on the District Judge to appoint an Additionat District Judge to perform any of the functions of the District Judge or any other [aw for the time being in force, but no such specific appointment of any of the Additionat District Judge, was done to try the election^petitions.

¶47

As the subject matter is pertaining to the etection of the 1't respondent as Counciltor of Ward No.2, Manthani Municpatity and her subsequent etection as Chairperson of Manthani Municipatity and in view of Rute 4 of the Tetangana Municipalites (Election Petition) Rutes, 2020, the Principat District Judge, Karimnagar, shatt have the^jurisdiction to entertain the election petitions, the order of the Principat District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 10.03.2020 in C.F.No.556 of 2020, in returning the Etection O.P. for presentation before the proper Court is not sustainabte.

¶48

Accordingly, the Civit Revision Petition is attowed at the admission stage, setting aside the order dated 10.03.2020 passed in C.F.No.556 of 2020 (Etection O.P.) by the Principat District Judge, Karimnagar and the learned PrincipaI District Judge, Karimnagar, is directed to number the Etection O. P., if it is

¶49

¶50

otherwise^{in orcer and disposeof the samein accrlrdance with}

¶51

[aw. There^{shatl be no order as to costs'}

¶52

Asasecluertthereto,M'iscettaneousPetitionsptlndlngifany'

¶53

shatt stand^closed.

¶54

Sd/- M. MANJULA, AS SISTANT REGI R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Distrir:t Judge at Karimnagar .

¶59

The Collector-cum-D istrict Election Officer, Rajanna Siricilla l)i itr ict at Siricilla - Telangana State.

¶60

The Commissioner Vemulawada Municipality -cum- Returning Officer, Vemulawada, Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶61

The Returning Officer of Ward No. 23, Vemulawada Municip: lity, Rajanna Siricilla District.

¶62

Two C.D.Copies

¶63

One CC to M/s. P.V. Nagamani, Advocate (OPUC)

()

HIGH COURT

GSDJ

DATED:01 l1(.tl:2020

1 ttr- SYA rC:
( /)
q
a
o() 0 i ocT 2U[
$.'o\2 *
i
\ i

¶69

ORDER

¶70

CRP.No.677' of 2020

¶71

ALLOWING THE CRP AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION. WITHOUT COS'|S

¶72

-x

Sayyeda Ayesha v. Smt. Putta Shylaja (Shailaja)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyeda Ayesha v. Smt. Putta Shylaja (Shailaja)

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

Ch. Madhu Babu Vs Abburi Bharathi and Another

L.Raja or L.S.Kumar Vs Mrs.Shaheen Fatima And Another

Ch.Madhu Babu, Vs Abburi Bharathi Another

Pratapa Ramakrishna Vs Rajendra Sharma Madhu and 5 others

Bhukya , Dharavath Pooja and 5 Others Vs B.S.S. Krishnakanth Naik

United India Insaurance Co.Ltd., Vs Smt. G.Padmamma and 7OTHERS.