Allowed

Vankudothu Vijaya v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC10 Nov 2021WP/14938/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition seeking direction to permit the petitioner to function as Sarpanch. The court held that the suspension order issued under Section 37(5) of the TSPR Act, 2018 had expired due to efflux of time and could not be used to prevent the petitioner from serving.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to permit the petitioner to discharge the functions of Sarpanch of Manchukonda Village.

Vankudothu Vijaya Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{TENTHDAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYONE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICET. VINOD KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETI^TI ON^{NO:14938 0F 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vankudothu Viiava, W/o.Deepakh,^{Agedabout 34} years, Occ. Sarpanch^of Ivlanchukonda Giam^{Panchayat, Ryo.Manchukonda} Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, Khammam^District ,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

l.TheStateofTelangana,rep.byitsPrincipalsecretaryforPanchayatrajdepartment' Secretariat,^HYderabad 2. ihe Districi^{C6llector, Khammam, KhammamD-istrict} 5. iii" oiriJi".if^{Fincrr'avatofficer, Khammam, KhammamDistrict}

¶11

i. frre AoOitional^{Collectdr, LB, Khammam, KhammamDistrict} d. 1ie r,rri"oii^{paitsnaa oeuet6pment officer, MPP, Raghunadhapalem, Khammam} District

¶12

O. ihl MLnOal^{Panchayat officer, MPP, Raghunadhapatem, Khammam district} i. ii"i; 1t/;;;hrronOa^{<jram Faninivat,Re"pby its Sdcretary, Manchukondavillage,} Raghunadhapalem,^{Khammam district}

¶13

...RES'oNDENT. Petition under Article^{226 ol the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith,the High court maybe pleasedto} issue a writ, order^{or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus'to} declare impugned^{order dated. 1gl0612021 in Rc.No.P3/161512021passed by the} respondent no. 2^{in suspendingthe Petitionerfrom the office of sarpanch of Manchukonda} village'Raghunadhapalemmandal,KhammamdistrictunderSection3T(5)ofTSPRAct2018 on the^{grounds that she has failedto monitor the proper sanitationand maintaining} ofGramPanchayatnursery,Harithaharamprogramthoughshehaswelldevelopedthe grampanchayatwithoutanymistakesandsinceshebelongstoCongressPartyandthe localleadersarepressurizinghertoioinintorulingTRSpartyasSherefusedtheir demands^{and hence she was suspendedunder the influenceof rransportMinister} PuwadaA,jayKumarisasillegal,arbitrarilyandviolationArticles,l4,2land300.4ofthe constitution^{of lndia and consequenfly set aside the impugned order dated.19-06-2021in} Rc.No. P3/161^{5/2021passed by the 2nd respondent}

¶14

IA NO:NO: I^{OF 20212021}

¶15

IA NO:NO: I^{OF 20212021} Petition under^{Section151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstatedin the} affidavit^{fired in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto suspendthe} impugnedorderdated.lgtl6l2l2linRc'NoP3/l6lsl2)zlpassedbythe2ndrespondent pending disposal^{of the above saidwrit petition}

¶16

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI PULLA RAO YELLANKI}

¶17

counserfor^{Respondent Nos'1 t'o' oiI*oot} BtuEiSlfil[i'^-

¶18

Gounsel^{for Respondent Nos' 5 to 7: SRI G' NAR-ENDERREDDY} SC FOR^{GRAM PANCHAYAT}

¶19

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶21

Writ Petition N .14938 of2O2l

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This wr:t petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 19.06.202I ir Rc.No.P3/ 161512021 issued by the 2"d respondent in suspendin g the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Manchukondz. Village, Raghunadhapalem Mandal, I(hammam District, as being illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government l,leader for Panchayat Raj, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 ard 6; and learned standing counsel appearing for the Gram Pancha 7at, respondent Nos.5 and 7.

¶25

A peru ial of the impugned proceedings dated 19.06.2021 would indicat: that the said proceedings have been issued by the 2nd responder t in exercise of powers conferred under Section 37(5) of the Telang..na Panchayat Raj Act, 201g (for short, ,the Act,). The said provisio 1 empowers the authority to place duly elected Sarpanch un,ler suspension, pencling enquiry, for a period of not exceeding six Fonths.

¶26

In the facts of the present case, since the impugned proceeding isr ued by rhe 2od respondent is dated 19.06.2021, and. the suspensio r is already over, and as it is not shown to this court that pending investigation suspension having been extended for the maximum period prescribed under Section 37(S) of the Act, or the responder ts have taken further action against the petitioner by removing the petitioner from holding the post of Sarpanch, the continuance rf suspension of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch can 1ot be countenanced.

¶27

¶28

In view of the same, the respondents cannot prevent rhe petitioner from functioning as Sarpanch of Manchukonda Village, Raghnadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District, under the guise of the rmpugned proceeding dated lg.06.202l 1n Rc.No.P3/I6t S/2021, as the impugned proceeding has worked out by itself due to efflux of time.

¶29

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to discharge the functions of Sarpanch of Manchukonda Village, Raghnadhapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

¶30

7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs

¶31

That Rule^{Nisi has been made absolute as above'absolute as above'as above'above'}

¶32

That Rule^{Nisi has been made absolute as above'absolute as above'as above'above'} i, witness^{rHE -iffi;t',} -'**dy;+1"""'*l':jl3:f}?51"?X6fy^'" \ this wednesdav' the rentn^{oav .,r rt'verrr--'' -}

¶33

AssrsrAsrs+'Jisss+xt*

¶34

//rRuE^coPY/'

¶35

'ecrror.fincrn

¶36

To, i The principal secretary for Panchayat^{raj department'state of relangana Secretariat'}

¶37

Hvderabad -

¶38

,, i i[fit#,'r#.":'!il"^{nmt-u mt}r:*;4.; I i:: xffi District,--..^+^+ri^ar r\IPP.RaghunaorllPi'^"J.::i,:;;.villaoe

¶39

1 l?le,try,+''{llu,'ro;i:,":"l}***^{:, ..","'" "'}

¶40

6: ix61t6ti,'n]'*"t"r Reddv' sc for Gram Panchavat(oPUC) lO One^{CC to s} ii io CD^CoPies

¶41

i z' on"^{SPare coPY}

MBC 7 (lt

HIGH^COURI,.

DATED:^1011112021

166 s TA re
e
oo 17 N0\l?.?tr !)
t
t
t:
t-,:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.14938 of 2021

¶48

ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

\
-fl

Vankudothu Vijaya v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vankudothu Vijaya v. The State of Telangana and 6 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

G. Heeralal, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Venkateswara Oil Mill Vs State of Telangana

Billakuri Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Billakuri Padma Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Arush Enterprises Vs The State of Telangana

Sudarshan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana