Dismissed

Smt. Gongolla Jyothi v. The State of Telangana and 12 others

Telangana HC15 Mar 2022WP/12842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two duplicate writ petitions filed by the same person against notices for a no-confidence motion. The Court refused the petitioner's request to withdraw one petition, observing it constituted suppression of facts, though it took a lenient view and did not initiate contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner warned not to indulge in duplicate filing; writ petitions dismissed without costs.

Smt. Gongolla Jyothi Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.ABHISHEKREDDY} WRIT PETITION NOS: 126?2^{AND 128420F 2022}

¶5

W.P.No.12622 ot 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gongalla Jyothi, W/o Chandrashekar^{Reddy,Age45 Yrs, Occ: UPasarpanch,R/o} Pudur Villa!e, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri^District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep by^{its Secretary,Panchayat Raj Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad- 500 022.

¶11

The District Collector,^{Medchal-Malkaigiri District}

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{Keesara Davision, Medchal-Malkajgiri} District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in} the nature of writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe notice issued by the Respondent} No.3 in Form No. lV dl. 1610212022 as^{being illegal, arbitrary and without} jurisdiction and consequently set aside the No confidence motion dt.^1610212022 issued in Form No. lV and be^{pleasedto pass.}

¶15

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to} suspend the notice in Form^{No. lV} dt.^{1610212022 issued by the Respondent} No.3 pending disposal of the WP^{and be pleasedto pass.}

¶17

Counset for the Petitioner : SRI.V.VENKATA^MAYUR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1^{: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL} DEV

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos'2 & 3 : GP FOR REVENUE}

¶20

W.P.NO: 12842 OF 2t 22

¶21

Between:

¶22

Smt. Gongolla Jyothi, Wo Gongalla Chandra Sheker Reddy, Aged 46 years, Occ House wif"e Rlo i-gO, Poodur Viilage, Medchal Mandal, Medcnai-Vatfalgiri Oistrici

¶23

.,.PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

1 The State of Telangana, Represented By its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶26

The District Collector, lVledchal, Malkajgiri District.

¶27

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Medchal Malkajgiri District

¶28

Tapala Manikyam, S/o. Late. Lakshmaiah Aged about. 32 years, Oct. Ward Member Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶29

Neerudi Kavitha, Wo. N. DevenderAged about. 40 years, Occ. Ward Member, R/o. Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶30

Tulasi Renuka, Wo. T. Srinivas Aged about. 34 years, Occ. Ward lVlember, R/o. Poodur Viilage, Medchal Mandal, Medchai-Malkajgiri District.

¶31

Manepally Venkatesham, S/o. Late Shivaiah Aged about. 40 years, Occ. Ward Member, R/o. Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶32

Dundigala Lingamma, Wo. D. Shankar Aged about. 49 years, Occ. Ward Member, R/o. Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malka.lgiri District.

¶33

Ettaboina Shashi Kumar, S/o, E. Mallesh Aged about. 36 years, Occ. Ward Member, Poodur Village, Medchal lr/andal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶34

Putnala Srikanth, S/o. Late P. Sathaiah Aged about. 33 years, Occ. Ward Member. R/o.^Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

¶35

Regu Uma Rarri, W/o. Regu Nagesh, Aged about. 33 years, Occ. Ward Member, R/o. {.No.6-18, Gosaiguda, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶36

Burkala Janardhan Yadav, S/o Mallesh Yadav Age 39 years, Occ. Ward Member, R/o H. No. 4-18, Poordu Village, Medchal Mandal, lr/edchalMalkajgiri District.

¶37

l3.Yatavelly Hanumantha Reddy, S/o Y Laxma Reddy, Age 48 years, Occ. Ward Member, R/o Near Mallanna Temple, Poodur Village, Medchal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances state,d in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a'rurit order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the notice in form No lV, dated 11.02.2022, issued by the respondent no.3 to convene the meeting, at the office of Gram Panchayath, on 16.03.2022, al 11,00 am for consideration of motion of No Confidence against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary contrary to the provisions of

¶40

¶41

Telangana Panchayat^{Raj Act and againstthe settled principles of law and} consequently set aside^{the same and to pass.}

¶42

t.A.NO :1 OF 2022

¶43

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} suspend the operation^{of ihe notice in form No lV, dated21 .02,2022, issued by} the respondeni no.3 to^{convene the meeting, at the officeof Gram Panchayath,} on rc.tjZ.ZOZZ, at^{1 1.00 am for consideration of motionof No Confidence against} the petitioner,^{pendingdisposal of the main writ petition and to pass'}

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SMT B. NAMRATA REDDY,CHANDRASEN LAW} OFFICES

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ RURALDEV}

¶46

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

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4 to 13 :} --

¶48

The Court made the^{followingCOMMON ORDER}

¶49

THE HI)N'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.12622 AND L2a42 of 2022

¶50

COMMON C,RDER:

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. With their consent, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶52

Both these writ petitions are filed by the very same person questioning the issuance of notices in Form lV dated 16.03.2022 and 21.02.2022, respectively, by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, Medchal Malktrjgiri District, respondent No.3.

¶53

W.P.lrlo.).2622 of 2022 came to be filed on 08.03.2022 and Writ Petition No.l2B42 of 2022 came to be filed on 09.03.2O2t1. Both the Writ Petitions are fi1ed by two dilferent counsel.

¶54

¶55

When the^{matters came up for admission' this Court} queried as^{to how the very samepetitioner filed two different} writ petitions^{seekingthe very same relief'}

¶56

Today,^{when the matters are taken up for consideration'} Ms.B.NamrataReddy,learnedcounselappearingforthe petitioner in^{W.P'No'12 842 of 2022} '^{inas sought to withdraw} one of the^{Writ Petitions, but this Court is not inclined to} permit the^{petitioner to withdrawthe same'}

¶57

In the affidavit^{fiIed in support of W'P'No' 12622 oI 2022'} at paragraph^{No'6, it is stated as under:}

¶58

"6. I submit^{that the impugnednotice is politically} motivated^{and as such illegal'I wasdischargingmy} duties as^{Upa-Sarpanch since 25 01 2019' I was given} additional^{charge on 14 02 '2022 ' It appears that at the} instance of^{the Sarpanch, the Ward Members have signed} and issued^{notice of No Confidence'There are no} allegations^{of misuse of my official positionfor the past} two^{years. Hence,the notice of No Confidence Motion is} contrary^{is contrary to Section 30 of the Act' The notice} is issued^{by the RespondentNo 3 and the same is} without^{jurisdiction lf the notice issuedin FormNo'lV} dl. 21.O2.2022^{isnot suspended' Iwill be put to} irreparable^{loss and injury'"}

¶59

¶60

¶61

In the affidavit filed in support olW.P.No. \2842 ol 2022, at paragrap:r No.7, it is stated as under:

¶62

"9 . It is respectfuily submitted that the respondent No.3 under political influence, without any authority under iaw, on administration side served notice under Form IV convening the meeting of no confidence at the office of the Gram Panchayat, Pudur Village, dated 16.O3.2O22 against the petitioner herein. The issuance of no conlidence motion against the petitioner with two days f:-om getting appointed to perform functions of Sarpalch is illegal and subsequently issuance of Notice under Form IV by respondent No.3 is liable to be set aslde."

¶63

B. Admittedly, it is not even denied by the petitioner in both the w;'it petitions that she has not signed the aflldavit or the vakalat. Perusal of the signature on the vakalat as well as the affidavit shows that both the writ petitions are signed by one and the same person. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of petitioner filing different writ petitions seeking the very same relief without disclosing about the filing of the earlier writ petition. Further, the Courts have held that the same amounts to suppression of material fircts and amounts to playing fraud on the Court. In fact, tht: Courts have gone to the extent of imposing healy

¶64

¶65

fines and initiating the contempt of^{Courtproceedings.} Taking lenient view of the matters,^{this Court is not inclined to} initiate any action against^{the petitioner.}

¶66

g. In view of the same, both the^{writ petitions are} dismissed. However, the^{petitioner is warned not to indulgein} such acts in future. There shall^{be no orderas to costs.}

¶67

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any pending,.shall stand closed.}

¶68

¶69

SD/.T.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER

¶70

¶71

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶72

The District Collector, Medchal, Malkajgiri District.

¶73

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Division, tvledchal Malkajgiri^District 4. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶74

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of^{Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶75

One CC to SRI.CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICES, Advocate IOPUC]

¶76

One CC to SRI.V.VENKATA MAYUR, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶77

B. Two CD Copies

¶78

One spare copy

S.A

NPJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 5103t2022

tr- STA )5:
,f
:)J 20 JUli 1.1 az
* i
t5,sp,\TGs 10

¶85

COMMON ORDER

¶86

WP.Nos.&2 AND 12842 of 2022 l2622-

¶87

DISPOSING OF THE: WRIT PETITIONS

¶88

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶89

C0*i$ &q-rd,s\r"

Smt. Gongolla Jyothi v. The State of Telangana and 12 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gongolla Jyothi v. The State of Telangana and 12 others

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

Tarimela Vijay Kumar Vs M. Raghunandan Rao

M/s. Madhukunj Flat Occupants Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Jangam Amulya Vs The State of Telangana

KannekantiYadagiri Vs State of Telangana

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Gongalla Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana