Allowed

Bakka Pullaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Dec 2021WP/32824/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a writ petition challenging the removal of a Sarpanch. The Court held that an impugned order signed by a third respondent violates the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice, requiring a fresh order by the proper authority after furnishing the enquiry report.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent to pass orders afresh after furnishing the enquiry report; costs not awarded.

Bakka Pullaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT P ETITI N NO: 2824 F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

E: Ilf, #lf, : +i,:J* 5;iiTJ: 3-',',f,i* :L i : f : l?,%T s.a rF an ch, G ra m

AND

...PETITIONER

3 4 A nl+:',ffit,y;ry:N*r,rm:::,":" 6. +nII#Es?.,:,#,:i{Pffi frHf; i;il'f,"1[5,i,:,,::v.:r::i,^{j;:es:rs:r{:,}

¶12

,..RESPONDENTS

¶13

petition under Articre .lz,a .or the constitution .of .rndia prayrng that in the crrcumstances stated in ttre attioaviittei tnir.ri,,i rssue a writ order or din [-+l,t^r'f^i#trs,;'#l:*lt-t+#*ili[!;l,**fiT"'i# ?'9'?:u^{or powers und";} r;; ;;rffi ;:;:I^'-I-'1^offjc-e 9r^{sarpanch in purported} Act, 2or8 b!l;;;'iil' sub section 2 of section sz orr"luns";r-ri.liSijin n"i "',11',1r"'ry:# ,''lf:*1i**5.;r"it!ii[",f ii-ril#::iii?iif ;:t::,d",h;;il;,#r,,ruiiru:,9::?i|:jItii{;3:ff^{::1,,i,'J"";,ffi} zno respondent. - -v-^I HqJo.,u rIr .rroer No.7311202018 passed by the

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

petition under Sectk 1 51 cPC pravino that in rh-e cjrcumstances stated in rhe :lfjg:rT^{rireo in sffioilrron} petitio.n, the Hish court order dated oz.li.'zoiii'ile pendins aispo..r'Jiie' ;;,"";';;H};,r;8fi;T"T:JJ;;'iff "i# ;::B:lrJl;

¶16

Counset for the petitioner: SRt A.pRABHAKAR RAO

¶17

COUNSEI fOrthE RESPONdENT NO.1 tO 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV

¶18

Counsel foi the Respondent No.6: SRI A.RAVTNDER

¶19

The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE-HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR}

¶22

OF 1 \tr/RIT

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

In the Present^{Writ Petition'the order PassedbY the 2"d} respondent^{in order No'731/2020-8dated02'12'2021whereunder} the^{petitioner was removed from the oflice of sarpanchin exercise} of^{powersundersub-section2 of section 32 of Telangana} Panchayat^{Raj Act, 2018 is calledin question'}

¶25

Heard^{learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned} Government^{pleaderappearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and with} their^{consent the Writ Petition is takenup for hearing and disposal} at the^{admissionstage'}

¶26

Petitioner^{contendsthat theimpugned proceeding} whereunder^{the petitioner has been removed from holding the post} of sarpanch^{of Thirumalgiri Gram panchayat by invoking the} provisions^{of Section 32 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act' 2018 has} been^{issuedunder the signatureof 3'd respondent for andon} behalf^{of the 2nd respondentand such authorizationby the 2"d} respondent^{in faYour of the 3"d respondentis not permitted in law} and^{therefore'the impugnedorder is vitiated' It isfurther} contended^{that the impugned order is even otherwisein violationof} principles^{of naturaljustice and inasmuch as the copyof enquiry} report^{statedto have 566n 5glmitted by the 3'd respondent has not} been^{furnished to the Petidoner'}

¶27

Learned^{Government Pleader appearingfor the respondent} Nos.1^{to 5 does not disputethe factof impugned proceedinghaving} /'

¶28

been^{signedby the 3'd respondent and not by the 2ndrespondent} by himself^'

¶29

Further,^{lt is also not in disputethat the petitioner had} sought^{for being furnished with a copyof enquiry reportstated to} have^{been conducted by the 3'a respondentThis Court'in similar} circumstances,^{in W'P No'19722 of 2O2Ohad held that oncea} statute^{conferspower of a particular Aurhority'itis the said} order^{and the same cannotbe} authority,^{who has to Pass} delegated.

¶30

Further,^{the Llon'ble SupremeCourt in J' Jayalalitha v'} State ofKarnatanal^{also held as under:}

¶31

"34.^{There is yet an uncontroverted legal principlethat} when the^{statute providesfor a particularprocedure'} the authority^{has to follow the sameand cannot be} permitted to act^{in contravention of the same' In other} words, where^{a statute requires to do a certain thing in} a certain^{way, the thing mustbe done in that way and} not contrary^{to it at all. Other methodsor mode of} performance are^{impliedly and necessarily forbidden'} The aforesaid^{settled legal propositionis based on a} legal maxim experssio^{unius est exclusionalterius'} meaning thereby^{that if a statuteprovidesfor a thing to} be done in a^{particular way, then it has to be done in} that manner and in^{no other manner and followingany} other course is^not Permissible.

¶32

In Stae of U.P. v. Singhara^{Singh: AIR 1964 SC 358,} this Court held as under:^{(AIR. 361.paraS)}

¶33

"8. The rule^{adopted in Taylor v, Taylor: (1875)1 Ch D} 426 is well recognlsed and^{isfounded on sound}

¶34

'^{(2014)2 SCC40}

¶35

¶36

principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessar y prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted.,,

¶37

(See also State of M.p. v. S.K. Dubey: (2012) 4 SCC S78)".

¶38

7 ' Having regard to the law as enunciated by the Hon,bre Supreme Court and also by this Court in similar matters, the impugned order which is passed in the name of the 2nd respondent, but signed by the 3'a respondent cannot be sustained.

¶39

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent authority to pass orders afresh in accordance with the provisions of Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 2018. It is needless to mention that the 2"d respondent before passing the orders afresh shall furnish a copy ofthe enquiry report to the petitioner to enable him to offer his explanation thereto which sha1l be considered by the 2"d respondent while passing the order afresh.

¶40

Though the 6e respondent who is stated to be the beneficiary of removal of the petitioner as a sarpanch and put in his seat, claims to have entered caveat and sought to advance his arguments, this Court is of the view that, since challenge in the Writ Petition is laid to the action of the 2nd and 3d respondent authorities, it is the said respondents who justify their action and the unofficial respondent like 6t1, respondent has no say in it and cannot defend the action of the said authorities. Therefore, this

¶41

to hear^{the iearnedCounsel} Court^{has not lelt itnecessary} appearing^{for the 6e resPondent}

¶42