Allowed

Pratapa Ramakrishna v. Rajendra Sharma Madhu and 5 others

Telangana HC1 Oct 2020CRP/695/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition allowed at admission stage setting aside an order returning an election petition to a court lacking territorial jurisdiction, directing the lower court to adjudicate the petition under the Telangana Municipalities Act.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed at admission stage; order dated 10-03-2020 passed by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar set aside; directed to number Election O.P. and dispose of it.

Pratapa Ramakrishna Vs Rajendra Sharma Madhu and 5 others — 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 TWEN'TY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 695 OF 2020

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 10-03-2020 in C.F. No. 555 of 2020 ( Un - numbered Election O.P. ot 20201 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge at Karimnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

PRATAPA RAMAKRISHNA, S/o Lingaiah, age. 57 years, occ. Business, R/o H.No.7-11, Baddipochamma Veedhi, Vemulawada, Rajanna Siricilla Dist - Telangana State - 505 302. ...PETITIONER/ Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Rajendra Sharma Madhu S/o Chandraiah age. 59 years, Present Vice-Charrman of Vemulawada Municipality, Rajanna Siricilla Dist.

¶11

Thangella Ganesh, age. major, R/o Vemulawada Town, Rajanna Siricilla District - Telangana State.

¶12

Kavvala Vikaram, age. major, R/o Vemulawada Town, Rajanna Siricilla DistrictTelangana State.

¶13

The Collector-cum-District Election Officer, Rajanna Siricilla District at Siricilla - Telangana State.

¶14

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

¶15

6, The Returning Officer of Ward No. 23, Vemulawada Municipality, Rajanna Siricilla District. ...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto set-aside (set at naught) the return order dated 1010312020 of the Prl District Judge, Karimnagar in C.F. No. 555 of 2020 (Election O.P.)^.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

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 take the Election O. P. filed by the petitioner vide in C.F. No. 555 of 2020 on file, number and adjudicate the same, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. \r. NAGAMANI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶21

The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶23

::lvlL REVISION PETITION No. 695 of lltlli0

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Civil Revision Petition is fited und.:r Articte 227 of the Con:,titution of lndia, aggrieved by the crder, dated 10.03.2020 pa:;sed in C.F.No.555 of 207Q (Electiorr O.P.) by the Principat District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the Ete,:t on Petition O.P. fited unde,r Section 233 of the Tetangana Municipatities Act, 2019 was retL,rrned.

¶26

The facts in issue are as under:

¶27

The petitioner herein fited Etection O.P. und,:r Section 233 of the Tetangana Municipatities Act, 20'19 read with Flu.e 3 of the Telangana Municipatities (ELection Petitions) Rutes, 2020 before the Prin:ipal. District Judge, Karimnagar, seeking the foltowing reliefs:

¶28

(1) to dectare the etection of the 1st rersoc,ndent on 75.01 .2070 as Re:turned Candidate for Ward No. 23 o1^/emutawada Municipality, Ra.lanna SiricitLa District as void;

¶29

(2) to der:tare the 1't respondent as disquatifre'd to hold the post of Vice.Chairman of Vemutawada Municipatity, Rajanna Siricit[a District. is void and ittegat; and

¶30

(3) to cieclare the petitioner as Returning Carcidate for Ward No.23 of Vemutawada Municipatity, Rajanna Siricilta District.

¶31

¶32

The Office of the Principat District Judge, Karimnagar, has raised an objection stating that the District Judge was not having any territoriaI^{jurisd'iction} as the matter pertaining to Vemutawada Municipatity, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of lX Additional District Judge, Sircilla and returned the said Etection 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^{jurisdict'ion} in v'iew of G.O.Ms.No.346, Law (t.A. LE & J- Home Courts-C) Department, dated 16.02.70712. Chat[enging the same, the present CiviI Revision Pet'ition has been fited.

¶33

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

¶34

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rute 4 (a) and (b) of the Tetangana Municipatities (Etection Petition) Rutes, 2020, it is very ctear that the Principal District Judge is onty competent to entertain the etection petit'ions as there are number of District Judges in the District. She further submits that the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, has erroneousty returned the Etection O.P. without appreciating the rule position and prayed to attow the revision.

¶35

¶36

Before proceeding further it woutd be retevart to extract Section 233 o, tre Telangana Municipalities Act, 20']'), lt'hich reads as under:

¶37

"233. Election Petitions: (1) No etection helc under this Ac: shaLt be catted in question except by an etection petition presented to the Etection Tnbr-nat.

¶38

(2) fhe Ciovernment may specify a Court of )istrict Judge to be an Etection Tribunat to try the etection petitions under this Act.

¶39

(3) The l'ribunaI shatt deat with such petit,ors and proceedings in connection there with in the manner prescribecl. "

¶40

Rute 4 cf the Tetangana Municipatities (Etecticn Petitions)

¶41

" Rutes, 2020, reads as under:

¶42

"4. Election Tribunal : The Election Tribunal t;hatl be

¶43

(a) the District Judge having territoriaI^{jurisJi,:tion} over the M,unicipal area, or

¶44

(b) if ther,: are more than one such District JuCgle, the Principa. District Judge of the District."

¶45

Apart from that Ru[e 9 (1) of the Tetangana M,u.ric'ipatites (Etection Petitions) Rules, 2020, every etection petit on shatt be inquired into by the Etection Tribunal as nearly es ntay be in accordance witlL the^procedure appticabte to the triat of suits under the Cod,3 of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶46

¶47

From the above provisions, it is ctear that onty the Principal District Judge of the District wiLt get jurisdiction to try the etections petitions under the Telangana Municipatities Act, 2019. Though Section 11 (?\ of the Tetangana Civit Courts Act, 197?, 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 law for the time being in force, but no such specific appointment of any of the Additional District Judge, was done to try the etection petitions.

¶48

As the subject matter is pertaining to the etection of the 1st respondent as Councittor of Ward No.23, Vemutawada Municpatity and h'is subsequent etection as Vice Chairman of Vemulawada Municipatity and in view of Rule 4 of the Tetangana Municipalites (Etection Petition) Rutes,2020, the Principat District Judge, Karimnagar, sha[[ have the^jurisdiction to entertain the election petitions, the order of the PrincipaI District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 10.03.2020 in C.F.No.555 of 2020, in returning the Election O.P. for presentation before the proper Court is not sustainabte.

¶49

Accordingly, the Civit Revision Petition is attowed at the admission stage, setting aside the order dated 10.03.2020 passed in C.F.No.555 of 2020 (Etection O.P.) by the PrincipaI District Judge, Karimnagar and the learned PrincipaI District Judge, Karimnagar, is directed to number the Election O.P., if it is

¶50

.;-,.

¶51

¶52

otherwise in crder and dispose of the^{samein accorlance with}

¶53

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

¶54

As a sequel thereto, Miscetlaneous^{Petitionspen'Jirrg 'if any,}

shatI stand ctosed.

S di- M. MANUJU

AS SISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

:JECTION OFFICER

The Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

¶62

The Commissioner, The State Election Commission, Telanrlana State Hyderabad.

¶63

The Collectorcum-District Magistrate and Election Officer,^)e,ddapally Dist

¶64

The Returning Officer, Ward No.2, Manthani Municipality Marthani, Peddapally District.

¶65

One CC to M/s. P. V. NAGAMANI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

Q.^{TwoCD Copies}

HIGH COURl-

GSDJ

DATED:01 l1(|l',2020

ORDER

CRP.No.695,ol' 2020

g' . .ju.l!t,
1 H c S rA
)o-
) 0 5 t)cr 2m0
'/-
i)
+
oa' c

¶74

ALLOWING THF] CIIP AT THE ADMISSION STAGE

¶75

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶76

,2
^f
/.6

Pratapa Ramakrishna v. Rajendra Sharma Madhu and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratapa Ramakrishna v. Rajendra Sharma Madhu and 5 others

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

Sayyeda Ayesha Vs Smt. Putta Shylaja (Shailaja)

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

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