High Court dismissed writ petition challenging open voting method in PACS President elections, holding that once election notification is issued, writ jurisdiction does not lie. Petitioner advised to file election petition under applicable rules.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner at liberty to file election petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
(Special Original J urisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF IUARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4409 OF 2020
Between:
Eluri Koteswara Rao, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Aged 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 1-2, Chintoncheluka Village, Sampath Nagar Post, Tekuripalli Mandal (Kothagudem), Bhadradri District, Telangana. ...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High 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 5th Respondent in conducting election to the post of President, PACS, Bethampudi [/andal, Tekulapalli Mandal (Kothagudem), Bhadradri District by open voting instead of secret voting as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct respondent no. 5 to conduct fresh elections to the post of President, PACS, Bethampudi Mandal. Tekulapalli [t4andal (Kothagudem), Bhadradri District by secret voting.a{ad b ?MA tb Fa$.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
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 issue interim directions to the 6th respondent not to conduct meetings pursuant to his election to the post of President, PACS, Bethampudi fi/andal, Tekulapalli Mandal (Kothagudem), Bhadradri District on 16.02.2020, pending disposal of the Writ Petitio n,aad Wplwed to.&acr.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : GP FOR COOPERATION (TG)
Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI V.V.RAGHAVAN
The Court made the following ORDER
HON'BL,E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMATI SI{AVILI
!,I/RIT PETITION No.44O9 OF 2O2t)
ORDER:
Heard lSri B.Viaysen Reddy, learned cc,unsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperat:ve Societies and Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the 6tn respondent.
This writ petition is filed seeking the fo11owin13 relief :-
"...............Writ of Mandamus declarieg tl-re action of the 5tt respondent in conducting eler:tion to the postof President, PACS, Bethampudi It4ar,Jal, Tekulapalli Mandal (Kothagudem), Bhadradri District by opt:n voting instead of secret voting as being i11egal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct respondent No.5 to conduct fresh eiections to the I)ost of President, PACS, Bethampudi Mandal, Tekulapalli Mandrrl (Kothagudem), Bhadradri District by secret voting.............."
This Cou.rt, in similar circumstances dismissed'J/.P.No.3784
of 2O2O vide or'<[er dated 20.O2.2O2O.
In vieu' oi the same and for the reasons alil:e,'-his Court is of the consicle-,rd view that when once the Election Notification is issued, the qu:stion of entertaining the writ petition does not arise in view of th€ law laid down by the Hon'ble Supre:me Court in N.P.Ponnusw,z.mi us. Returning Officer, Narna,.kkaU, u,hereirr
the relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
"(1 The right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a civil right but is a creature of statute or special law an(l must be subject to the limitations imposerl by it.
(2) Strictly speaking, it is the sole right of the Legislature to exzrmine and determine all matters relating to the election of its own members, and if the legislature tak€s it out of its
'AIR 1952 -sc64
2
own hands and vests in a special tribunal and entirely new and unknownjurisdiction, that specialjurisdiction should be exercised in accordance with the law which creates it."
Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the trlection Notification and Elections by filing Election Petition in accordance with the Rules. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, sha11 stand closed.
SD/. T KRISHNAKUMAR ASSISTANT REGITRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTI OFFICER
To
s}/
HIGH COURT
AKS,J
DATED:0210312'X20
HE fi TA Ia
q
7
r)
30 ril z$20
ORDER
WP.No.4409 of 2020
DISMISSING TH[,'W.I'
WITHOUT COS-IS,.
1 c
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to declare the election method illegal and direct fresh secret elections after the election notification was issued.
Whether the right to vote or stand as a candidate for election to a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society is a civil right or a right under special law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, NarasikarApplied¶34
AIR 1952 sc 64 · Who else cites this
Eluri Koteswara Rao
State of Telangana
District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem District
District Cooperative Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District
PACS, Bethampudi
Lakkineni Surender
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
