Disposed

Bathula Laxma Reddy and 18 others v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC8 Jun 2021WP/1481/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Abhishek Reddy rejected a writ petition challenging the discriminatory allocation of municipal funds. The court ruled that funds allocated based on majority Council opinion cannot be faulted under Article 226 and directed petitioners to seek remedy via Section 65 representation to the Government.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the Government under Section 65 of the Act by filing a representation within two weeks. Writ petition dismissed.

Bathula Laxma Reddy and 18 others Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK^REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1481 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bathula Laxma Reddy^{and 18 others, S/o Eeswar Reddyaged about 51 years,} Occ. Counsellor R/o^{H.No.1-3'11404, Manavasai Apartment,Vidyanagar,} It/iryalaguda, Nalgonda District

¶9

tVlantral Runal Reddy,^{S/o M.RavinderReddy aged.about 39 years,}

¶10

Occ Counsellor F/o H.No 1- 1 37, Vidyanagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda

¶11

3.MohammedJanipasha,s/oMohammedSamiuoddin.agedabout..35years' occ. Counsellor.Rl/o^{H.No.12.19, Sitharampuram, MiryalgUdem'IVliryalguda'} Nalgonda

¶12

chilukuri sakkubai,^{D/o Yeallaiah aged about 69 years, occ. counsellor} R/o H.No.7-902, BangariGadda'^Miryalguda,

¶13

Pandiri Anitha, w/o^{P. Krishna, aged about 45 years, occ. counsellor,}

¶14

nyo H.No. 11-223 (2), Sitharamapuram, Miryalguda, Nalgonda,

¶15

Kommanna^{Nagalakshmi, D/o KCReddy Satyanarayana aged.about?4years'} Occ. Counsellorl^{FyoH.No. 34-308/'1 , Bapujinagar, tvliryalguda' Nalgonoa}

¶16

Lavuri Ravi Nayak, S/o^{Bangya, aged about31} ,^{years, Occ Counsellor} nlo H.tto. C-45, Vachyathanda,^{Dameracharla Nalgonda}

¶17

B. F arzana Begum,^{W/o Moiz, aged about.34 years, Occ Counsellor'} - nyo *.No. 7-6b0, l]angarugadda, Miryalaguda' Nalgonda

¶18

L - G.Chandrakala,^{D/oG Chandrayyaaged about 41 years, Occ Counsellor'} R/o H.No.28-522, Sundarnagar,^{N/iryalguda,Nalgonda'}

¶19

Podila Venkatamma,^{D/o R.Hanmaiah aged about 51 years,Occ' Counsellor'} F/o Bejjikal, Chennaipalem,^Nalgonda.

¶20

P.Chandrakala, W/o^{Maraiahaged about 58 years' Occ' Counsellor'} Fy; H.No. 18-3'80,^{Shanthinagar, Ir/iryalguda'Nalgonda,}

¶21

'1 2. Shaga Jayalaxmi, W/o Jayender Reddy aged^{about 39 years'Occ Counsellor'} - nlo "u. no.'z-77l3, Saraswaihinagar' Mi ryalguda, Nalgonda

¶22

K.Viiaykumar, S/o^{K'lnnaiahagedabout} .⁵⁹ .^{years' Occ Counsellor} - riio'n]r.ro.ts-i265, vinobanagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda

¶23

14.D.Sekhar Reddy,^{S/o. Krishna Reddyaged about 49 years' Occ Counsellor} nyo ft. Nto. t e-90416(1 ),^{Hanumanpet Miryalaguda, Nalgonda}

¶24

G.Ramakrishna, S/o^{G.Kotaiahaged about 51 years' Occ'Counsellor} - ft.No.O-+OSI 1, Ramnagar, Miryalguda Nalgonda'

¶25

'- M.Narshi^{Reddy,S/o tvl.Lachi Reddy aged. about 49 years' Occ Counsellor} nyo H.No.zs-3oli,^{Eedulaguda, Miryalguda, Nalgonda}

¶26

'17. B.Yadaoiri Reddv, S/o Ram Reddy' aged about^{47 yearc; Occ Counsellor} ' iloii.ir"o, so+0,'e"onutaguda Miryalaguda' Nalgonda District

¶27

C,Nagamma, R/o H . No. 3^{1 -Ba, D/o na ma;-a Lachaiah giioa n o} ?Sqd^{a- A m rutra about n a g a 39 r' tv1i rya years'} I g ud a'^Occ. N a^{I gon d Counsellora} 19.Kommu Srinivas,^{S/o Somulu, aged about 47 years'OccCounsellor' Rl/o H No'} 2-26Bt2, Gandhinagar,^{Miryalaguda, Nalgon0a}

¶28

...PETITIONERS

¶29

AND

¶30

1 The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary' Municipal Administration} ;;; U;6;, b;;;6p?eni^{oe'pt,secretariai Buildinss' Hvderabad}

¶31

The District Collector, Nalgonda District

¶32

The Additional Collector, Local Bodies, Nalgonda District,

¶33

The Miryalguda Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner. Miryalguda, Nalgonda District

¶34

Miryalguda l/unicipal Council, Rep by its Chairperson, Miryalguda IMunicipality Nalgonda District.

¶35

,..RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under Article 226 ol 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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of It4andamus declaring the action of the respondents in sanctioning and allocating works in a discriminatory and illegal manner under the Agenda ltems 1, 2 and 3 in Resolution passed dt 31 .12.2020 as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutio nal and set aside the said Agenda ltems 1,2,3 for which Resolution was passed on 31 .12.2020 and consequently direct the respondents to allocate funds in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2019.

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶38

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 suspend/stay the Resolution Passed on 31 .12.2020 in respect of Agenda ltems 1, 2 and 3, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. P PANDU RANGA REDDY

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶41

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: SRl. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MC

¶43

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶44

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A,ABHISHDK REDDY

¶45

WTTIT PETITION No. 148 L of 2021 9_8p_ER:

¶46

I{card the learnecl counscl f<rr l.he pctltioners, the learned Gov<:rnment Pleadcr for. Municipal Adntinistration and Urban Development for respo.de.t No. 1, the learned Government Pleader for lievenue for respondcnt Nos.2 and 3, and Sri N.praveen Kumar, '.he learned Standing Counsel, Ior rcspondent Nos.4 and S. With their consent, the w t petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶47

Seeking to dcl;ia rc the action of rhe responclcnrs it-r sancrjoning ancl allocirtrirg the r.orks under the Agencla Items L, 2 anci 3 in the I?esolurron daled 31.12.2A2A of the respondent \1 lmicipalitl', in a cliscrinrinatory and illegal nranrte r,^{as rlleg:r1 and} tirbitr:rn,, lhc presenL^{tr't-,'.ptltiLion ls ijlecl}

¶48

The pctitioners hcrcin^{are lhe counsellors elected from thcrr} r-c:spcctive Warcls ol^{N{itlalagucla Municipalitl' ln brief' their case} rS l-hat On Ili' i2'20:]0^{a (]or-rnci] Meetingrvas conducted in respcct} ol^'/5 agenda^{items and after conclttsionof the meetinga} Resolutionrr,asalsopassed.InsofarasagendaitemNos.l,2and3 arcr concernecl,^{Resolutionruas passed sancrioningand allocal.ing} iunds lor^{ccrLain $'orks contrarvto the guidelinesissued b1' the} Govcrnment^{of lrrdra al.rci in a discriminatorymanner' Petitroners} hal'c also^{[i1ed reprcscntation,datec]28 '12'2a2o,to respondent} Nos.2. 3 ancl^{4 brirLglr:!{ iho siarcl dlscriminatory trcts to lheirnol.ice'} hou'evcr,^{no act.ion hLilsbctrn tilli(iJl ile ncc' lhis u-rit petiliou}

¶49

Rospouclcnt^{No'1-ivlunicipaliry1-iaslilt'-rl a} counlcr^{dcnf ing} and stating^{tha t} ttrrr allcgi.tlions^{maclc i-'-" Lhc} ''i'r'ir^petiliont:rs

¶50

¶51

to the^{decision taken in the Council meeting heldon} pursuant 31.12.202 O, a1i the^{Counsellors were askedto submit the list of} ards^{in their respectiveWardsEventhoughsomeof the} priorrtY^W Counsello rshavesubmittedthelist'l0WardMembersdidnot bother^to furnish the^{same Some of the amounts whichare} allotted to^{a particular Ward include works for Vaikuntadhamam} and Park^{development,which cannotbe shifted to other Ward'[n} the counter^{is further stated that the fundswereallocated as per} the guidelines^{issued l-ly the Governmentfrom time to time and} that the^{writ petitionitself is not maintainable' That the} petitioners have an^{alternativeremedyavailabie under Section 65} of the Telangana^{Municipalities Act, 2019 (in short 'the Act')' That} in case the^{petitioners are aggrieved by the Resolutionpassed by} the Council, the remedy^{available to them is under Section 65 of} the Act, and without availing^{the said remedy,the petitionershave} approached this Court straightaway^{and the same isnot} maintainable. That neither the Commissioner^{nor the District} Collector have the^power to interfere in^{the matter of Resolt-ttions} passed by the Council. That the petitioners instead of approaching the Government have filed the present writ petition and that the tenders were ca11ed for as per the procedure established.

¶52

Petitioners have filed a reply to the counter filed by the respondent No.4-Municipality, stating that in respect of the Wards being represented by the counsellors belonging to TRS Party, the authorities have allocated Rs.35 lakhs whereas in respect ol the Wards being represented by the counsellors belonging to Congress Party, the authorities have allocated Rs.20 iakhs and therebry acted in a discriminatory manner. It is further stated that the allocation

¶53

¶54

ol lunds towards Vaikuntadham am, park l)evelopment, etc. are

¶55

not part of^{Agenda item No.2.}

¶56

Hearcl and Perused^{the record}

¶57

It is seen^{from the record that the Council has passed the} Resolution^{allocatingthe fundsonly after taking the opinionof} majority^{of the members The role of either the Commissioner'the} Distnct Collector^{or this Court under Article 226 ofthe} Constitution^{of India is very limited'Once the Counciipassesa} resolution^{on the basis of the majority voting' neitherthe} Commissioner^{nor the Collector can interfere with the same except} making^{a representationto the Governmentunder Section65 of the} Aci.. This^{Court sittingunderArticle 226 of the Constitution of} lndia^{cannot go into thc aspectas to what are the quantumof} funcls that^{have to be allocated to a particularWard' As perthe} Agcnda^{of the Councildated 24 '12 '2O2O it is seen that based on} the works^{which have to be executed ibr a particular Ward' the} funds^{are ailocated' ltavingregard to the fact that thc Resolution} was passed^{by the Councilbased on the opinion of majorityof the} Counsellors,^{the same cannot be found fault with'}

¶58

It is apt^{to extracl hereunder the relcvantportionof Section} 65 of the^Act:

¶59

Government's Power^tocancelor suspend^{resolution of the Municipality'-(l ) The} Government^{may, either suo-motuoron} representation^{by any member' the Chairpersonor} the^{Vice-Chairperson'the District Coilectorand} the Commissioner,^{by orde r' in wrltlng'-}

¶60

(a) cancel any resolution passed, order issued, or license or permission granted; or

¶61

(b) prohibit the doing of any acL, which is about to be done, or is being done, in pursuance or under the colour of this Act, if in their opinion,-

¶62

(i) such resolution, order, license, permission or act has been passcd, issued, granted or authorized is not in accordance r,vith law; or (ii) such resolution, order, license, permission or act is in excess of t1-re powers conferred by this Act or any other enactmenU or

¶63

(iii) the above acts mention in subclauses (i) and (ii) the continuancc in force of such act or permissions is likely to cause financial loss to the Municipality, danger to iife, heatth or safety to human life or is likely to lead to a riot or disturb public peace and tranquillity or rs against publi,. interest:

¶64

Having regard to the said provision, the petitioners are directed to approach the Government, by u,ay oI a representation, ventilating their grievanc)c, within a perio<i of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this orcler and in case the petitioners submit any such representation within the stipulated time, rhe respondent No.1 shall consider the same on its own merits, h-r case the respondent No.1 comes to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioners are true, he shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

¶65

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶66

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶67

SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶68

To,

¶69

1 The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Dept, State of Telangana Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶70

¶71

The Dishict Collector, Nalgonda District

¶72

The Additional Coilector, Locai Bodies, Nalgonda District ,

¶73

1 Jf : 9:lrissioner,.^{I\itiryatguda Ir,4unicipatity-,IViryatguda,Natgonda Districr} 5. .t.ne Uhairperson, Ivliryalguda IMunicipal Council, Miryalguda li,lunicipality Nalgonda District.

¶74

One CC to Sri. P pandu Ranga Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI

¶75

One CC to Sri. N.^praveen Kumar, SC for GHIVC (OeUC)

¶76

Two CCs to GP for l/unicipal Administration & Urban Development, High Court

¶77

for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶78

Two CCs to the GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. (OUT) 10.Two CD Copies.

¶79

1 1. One Spare Copy.

¶80

PN/

¶81

. -t--

."-..'<''--.f€#

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0810612021

ORDER

WP.No.1481 ot 2021

,--ffi<br>t"t
e$
rt;
(t
\i._i--:;-;'

¶88

Disposing of the WP Without costs.

¶89

oxv

Bathula Laxma Reddy and 18 others v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bathula Laxma Reddy and 18 others v. The State of Telangana and 4 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

N.Anadalamma Vs The State of Telangana

Y.Vivekananda Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

N.Anadalamma Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Syed Basheer Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Sundeep Gupta Vs The State of Telangana

M/s R.C. Developers Vs State of Telangana