Allowed

Shaik Sajeed v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC13 Oct 2022WP/24021/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a suspension order issued against a Municipal Councilor under Section 66 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 post a pending criminal case. The court set aside the order due to compliance violations and directed the continuation of the petitioner. Keywords: suspension, natural-justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, suspension order set aside, petitioner continued as Councilor and Vice Chairman without costs.

Shaik Sajeed Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others — Telangana HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 24021 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Sajeed, S/o. Hakeem, Aged 35 years, Occ Vice Chairman and Councilor of Ward No.22, Nirmal Municipality, Rio. Vishwanathpet, Nirmal, Nirmal District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶11

2 The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The Collector and District lvlagistrate, Nirmal District at Nirmal. I

¶13

4 The Municipality, Nirmal, Nirmal District, Rep by its Commissioner.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 lo issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 3rd respondent vide Proc.No.Peshill112022, dated 02.03.2022 in placing the^petitioner under suspension from the membership of firmal Municipality with immediate effect by invoking Section 66 of Telangana Municipalities Act, 20"19 on the allegation that the^petitioner was involved in a criminal case, though the said criminal case is nothing to do with his functioning as Vice Chairman and Councilor of the Municipality, without giving any opportunity and without mentioning the time period and without even mentioning that the suspension order is passed^pending investigation into the charges and further directing the petitioner to submit the explanations why he shall not be disqualified

¶16

as the lvlember of I irmal Municipality, as illegal, arbitrary, unjrst, abuse of^process of law, violation of^)rinciples of Natural Justice, without^juris<l ction and against the provisions of T.S. Iunicipalities Act,2019 and set aside the orders passed by the 3rd respondent '/i ie Proc.No. Peshi/01/2022, dated 02.()!.2.022 with a further direction to the res rondents to continue the petitioner as Councilor of Ward No.22 and as Vice Charr nan of Nirmal Municipality of Nirmal Dislrict in the interest of justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition und,^,r Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{()ir',:umstances} stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court nrer'/ be pleased to direct the respondents to :ontinue the petitioner as Councilor of Vr'.ard No.22 and as Vice Chairman of Nirrr ll Municipality of Nirmal District by r;rrspending the orders passed by the 3rC respondent vide Proc. No.Peshi/O112022 ,7ated 02.03.2022 in the interest of^justi< e pending disposal of the above writ pelitron.

¶19

Counsel for the F'r titioner: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Fk spondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR MCPL At li/lN URBAN DEV

¶21

Counsel for the Fk spondent No. 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counsel for the R.e spondent No. 4: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUTVL\R,

¶23

SC FOR MUNICII'ALITIES

¶24

The Court made tt : following: ORDER

¶25

I{ON'BI,E SMT. JUSTICE LALTTHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETIIION No.24021 of 2022

¶26

ORDEI{:

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶28

" . . . to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 3d respondent vide Proc No Peshi/O1/2022 dated 02.03.2022 in placir'g the petitioner under suspension from the membership of Nirmal Municipality with imrnediate eftbct by invoking Section 66 of Telangana Municipalities Act 2019 on the allegation that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, thougli the said criminal case is nothing to do with his functioning as Vice Chainnan and Councilor of thc Municipality without giving any opportunity and without mentioning the time period and without cven mentioning that the suspension order is passed pending investigation into thc charges and further directing the petitioner to subrnit the explanations why he shall not be disQualified as the Member of Ninnal Municipality as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, abuse of process of law, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, without^jurisdiction and against the provisions of T. S. Municipalities Act, 2019 and set aside the orders passed by the 3d respondent vide Proc.No.Peshi/01 /2022 dated 02.03 .2022 u,ith a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Councilor of Ward No. 22 and as Vice Chairman of Nirmal Municipality of Nirmal District in the interest ofjustice ...."

¶29

Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the^petitioner was elected as Councilor from Ward No.22 of Nirmal Municipality. Thereafter, the petitioner was 'elected as Vice Cl.rairman of the said Municipality and he is discharging his duties to the satisfaction of one and all. He submits that at the instance of political opponents, a false case was registered against the petitioner i.e., Crime No.18/2022 on 26.02.2022 for the offences under llections 363, 376(2)(n),

¶30

¶31

¶32

376(DA),37r ,370(a). 176.212,342,506 and il(ll rcad with 109 IPC and Scc ion 5 read rvith 6 and Section l(r r',;ad with l7 of POCSO Act rnd the petitioner is arrayed as accus;,,:d No. I ar-rd he was arcsted ',n 02.03.2022. By proceedings dat,;,] r)2.03.2022, the petitioner wzr ; placed under suspension witir in'rrr:diate effect by invoking Scr tion 66 of the Telangana Municrirr rtjtics Act- 2019 (fbr sl-rort,^'tl e Act'). Learned Counsel submit.s the reasons that are r-nentione: I in the suspension order are not in r:onlbrrnity with Section 66 o'the Act. None of the conditions; rnenlioned under Scction 66 o the Act are attracted. Further', tlrt: rraxirnurn period that the petir Loner can be placed under suspenl;ion is six rnonths pending encli iry.^-l-he impugned order is passed cn 02.03.2022 and six months p :riod l-ras elapsed.

¶33

Leame'I^(iovemrnent Pleader for Municicrl Administration submits that in view of the criminal case regi:rt.r,:recl against the petitioner, t re official respondents placed the petitioner under suspcnsion. {owever, he cloes not dispute the f,rr:t that even as per the said pror ision, the suspension cannot be beyorL<l six months.

I I

In that view of the matter, as already impugned order is passed on 02.03.2022 and six months period is elapsed, on that

¶39

ground, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶40

,5 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to

¶41

costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous applications, pcnding if any, shall stand

¶43

closed

¶44

SD/. K. ONESIM DEPUTY REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/t GI) SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶47

The Collector and District Magistrate, Nirmal District at Nirmal.

¶48

The Commissioner Municipality, Nirmal, Nirmal District.
5. One CC to SRI S. SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶50

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies.

¶51

't 0: One spare copy. NPJ cJPey'

HIGH COUF T'

DATED:131' 012022

ORDER

d6<br>7L
o
,5
t, g N'J"i il[L
j
v: )i t, ]t
't.1 *

¶56

WP.No.24021 of 2022

¶57

ALLOWING )F THE WRIT PETITION

¶58

WITHOUT C( )STS,

Shaik Sajeed v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Sajeed v. The State of Telangana and 3 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

SVs Advaith Homes Vs The State of Telangana

Ravu Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

V.G.Gyaneshwar Vs The State of Telangana

A. Srinivas Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Cheeti Rama Rao Vs The State of Telangana

A. Srinivas Goud and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others