Disposed

P. Ranga Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Feb 2020WP/2646/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to challenge the inclusion of a defaulter in a society's voter list. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's deferred representation on 03.02.2020 and pass appropriate orders before accepting the aggrieved person's nomination.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the representation dated 03.02.2020 and pass appropriate orders before accepting the 6th respondent's nomination.

P. Ranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.2646 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶4

“..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.3 & 5 in not deleting the name of the 6^th respondent from the voter list of the 4^th respondent society in pursuance of the representation dt.03.02.2020, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent no.3 & 5 to delete the name of the 6^th respondent from the voter list of the 4^th respondent society, in the interest of justice and equity and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶5

Heard Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, counsel for the petitioner, and the Government Pleader for Agriculture and Co-operation appearing for the respondents.

¶6

It has been contended by the petitioner that he is a member of the 4^th respondent Society and that as the 6^th respondent is a defaulter, his name ought not to have been included in the voters’ list. It is the further case of the petitioner that the last date for preparing the voter list of the 4^th respondent Society from among the list of eligible candidates was 31.12.2019, and as on 31.12.2019, the name of the 6^th respondent was not included in the said voter list. It is also stated that the name of the 6^th respondent was included in the voter list on 01.02.2020 i.e., after the cut off date is over, and the respondents are allowing the 6^th respondent to contest in the elections, which is not permissible as per the Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the case of the 6^th respondent to

¶7

¶8

participate in the election process was being considered, he has submitted a representation to the respondents on 03.02.2020, but so far the respondents have not passed any orders on the said representation and are taking steps to allow the 6^th respondent to participate in the elections.

¶9

Therefore, counsel for the petitioner contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.02.2020 and pass appropriate orders before the respondents accept the nomination of the 6^th respondent.

¶10

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that since the representation of the petitioner is pending with the respondents, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

¶11

This Court, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 03.02.2020 and pass appropriate orders before accepting the nomination of the 6^th respondent.

¶12

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶13

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶15

7^th February, 2020 Note : Issue CC today B/o v v

¶16

P. Ranga Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ranga Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Mohammed Rafiq, Vs Prl.Secy., Energy dept.

M/s. Hillton Constructions Builders and Developers Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

Yalamanchili Lakshmi Annapurna Vs Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Corporation Limited and 4 Others

V. Konda Reddy Vs Dr.T.Vijaya Kumar, IAS

Bongoni Rajesham Vs Sri N. Sridhar and 3 others

M/s.Sri Venkateshwara Constructions Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others