Dismissed

Boddu Kishan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Oct 2020WP/7909/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by Boddu Kishan challenging a notice and alleged obstruction of duties, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition because the respondents submitted that a final order had already been passed after considering the petitioner's reply, rendering the writ unnecessary. The matter was disposed of without adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, were stood dismissed.

Boddu Kishan Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7909 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Boddu Kishan, S/o.Ellaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. H.No.5-51, Dharmaram village, Konaraopet Nilandal, Karimnagar District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The District Collector and Distrrct Election Aulhority, Karimnagar, Karimnagar Districl.

¶13

3 The Telangana State Election Commission, 1st Floor, DTCP Building, Opposite to PTI Buildings, A.C. Guards, Hydreabad, rep. by its Secretary.

¶14

4 The tr/andal Parishad Development Officer, Konaraopet lVandal, Karimnagar District.

¶15

5 The Dharmaram Grampanchayat, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary, Dharmaram village, Konaraopet lt/andal, Karimnagar District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 o'f the 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, particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in issuing the notices in Lr.No.2905/ TSEC-PR/Konaraopet/G Ps/2019 (23), dale 25.11.20'19 to the petitioner and also declaring the action of the respondents in obstructing the^petitloner discharging^his duties assigned to him to the office of Dharmaram Grampanchayat as^illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the^provisions under the^{Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and} consequently to set-aside the impugned^{Notice dated 25.11.2019 issued by the3'd} respondent.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court may be pleasedto} suspendtheNotiCeinLr.No'2905/TSEC-PR/Konaraopet/GPS/2019(23),date 25.11.2019 issued^{by the 3rd respondent,pending disposal of the above writ} petitio n.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.KALVALASANJEEV}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1& 2:}

¶22

GP FOR PANCHAYAT^{RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT}

¶23

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No.3: SRI P' SREEDHAR RAO'} SC FOR T.S.^{ELECTION COMMISSION}

¶24

Counsel forthe^{Respondent Nos.4& 5: SRI G' NARENDER REDDY'} SC FOR GRAM^PANCHAYAT

¶25

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶26

,^"*L..I

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 7909 of 2020

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶30

"....to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\4andamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in issuing the notices in Lr.No. 2905/TSEC-PR/Konaraopev GPs/2019 (23), date 25.11 .?019 to the petitioner and also declaring the action of the respondents in obstructing the petitioner discharging his duties assigned to him to the office of Dharmaram Grampanchayat as rllegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions under the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and consequentiy to sel aside the impugned Notice dated 25.11 2019 issued by the 3rd respondent

¶31

When the matter was taken up yesterday, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Even today also, there is no representation.

¶32

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3_State Election Commrssion and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4-lVandal parishad Development Officer, Konaraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District submit that after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 20.12.20j9, final order was passed on 02.03.2020. A copy of which was served on the petitioner.

¶33

ln those circumstances, show cause notice worked out itself, as, after consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, final orders were passed, as such, nothing remains for adjudication in the writ petition.

¶34

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions. if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs

¶36

SD/. N.CHANDRA SEKH AO ASSISTANT RE TRAR ,TRUE COPY//

¶37

One CC to Sri Kalvala Sanjeev, Advocate tOpUCl

SECTION OFFICER

To,

2 Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶42

One CC to Sri P. Sreedhar Rao, SC for T.S. Election Commission [OPUC]

¶43

4 One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for Gram Panchayat [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

ry--,-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711012020

ORDER

.I
I
1 H E S I ,€
(
?
d 1e ocT2uo
.,o
a+y'
.t t
DF.5p.4i6tr

¶50

W.P.No.7909 ot 2020

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COTS

¶52

5sV,
-1 co? re A
)rr"r *"*

Boddu Kishan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boddu Kishan 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

Dubba Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Md. Razia.Bee Vs The State of Telangana

Madharapu Taravva , Tara Vs The Telangana State Election Commission and 5 others

Yella Lachireddy Vs The State of Telangana

Gurka Kumar Vs The State of Telangana And 5 Others

M/s. Tharu and Sons Vs Union of India Ministry of Railways