Allowed

Gurram Ashok v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC24 Apr 2023WP/1710/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Section 151 CPC, directed the respondent authorities to initiate action against the unofficial petitioner who produced a false caste certificate during the 2018 Gram Panchayat elections and cancel her certificate after affording her an opportunity of being heard within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 is directed to complete the proceedings in RC No 021249112022 following due procedure after giving opportunity to respondent No.7 within two months.

Gurram Ashok Vs The State of Telangana and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

[³³⁰³¹

{

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

¶5

MONDAY, THE^{TWENTY FOURTHDAYOF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTHREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEJ. SREENIVASRAO}

¶8

{

¶9

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO:171 0 0F 2023}

¶10

Between:

¶11

GurramAshok,S/oLingaiah,Age30,OccStudent'R/oYedlappalliVillage' M;i;l;ir* M;hdal,^{Jai ShankarBhoopalapallyDistrict}

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretaryto.Panchayath Ra'} D6;,fi ;"i,^{slcieiJi,ai euiioin g s secreti riat, Hvdera bad}

¶15

2 The Telanqana^{StateElectronCommission, 1st Floor' DTCP Building' AC} cuiros, HiOerabad,^{Rep by its Commissioner'}

¶16

3 The District collector,^{Jai shankarBhoopalapally District (PanchayathRai} Dpt), BhooPalaPallY

¶17

4.TheDistrictPanchayathofficer,JaishankarBhoopalapallyDistrict.

¶18

5- The^{Mandal Parishath Development Officer, MalahalraoMandal' Jai Shank?r} BhoopalaPallY^District

¶19

The Grampanchayath, The Grampanchayath, Grampanchayath,^{Yedlapalli, Malahalrao-Mandal'Jai Shankar}

¶20

The Grampanchayath, The Grampanchayath, Grampanchayath,^{Yedlapalli, Malahalrao-Mandal'} " B#6;;daliy-oiltiict rep bv its Panchayath Secretary'

¶21

Janaoama^{Swaroopa,Wo Sammaiah, Age 40 Occ S-aroanchat Yedlapalli} ' ffi;';;;;h";liri, R7"Y"oi#rii' Vliilgb' di t"'l'hairaoMindal'^{Jai sha nkar} BhooialaPallY^District.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under^{Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndiaprayingthat in the} therewith'^{the HighCourt ma-y} -be circumstances^{stated in tn"} 'itiJa'ii-nfed oleased to issue^{writ, order} ",^{Jir""ti""more particularly.one in the nature of writ} :iirHd;H;:i,i,iails^th; "ti""^{ot respondentauthorities'in not initiatins} ili;;';;iil tne-unott'lciariespono"nt^{*nbprodu^ced-false caste certificatein} til'"er;ilp";;hayath^{etections'intne year 2ot8 and cancelled her caste} certificate by^{consideringthe petitioners repre-sentationson 13-4-2022'} 1B-B-2O22,^{2O-g-2O22, 22-7 -20i2 and official corresponUenceof the authorities'} aoainst the^{principals of} dated 22-8-2022,^{23-9-202;, ;;ilrug'l} "ibit"'y-and natural^{justice and in contrar-y to-tn"'d"""n"viitr'R.1R"t I2018. Consequentlyto}

¶24

¶25

¶26

direct the^{responCe't aJthorltlesto} certifrcate^{lnltlateactlon- by cons'rderlnrl agalnst thelhe} )etitio u n offt^nerscraI resoondent^{and to ca tt'' tn" i'kJ} "'"ie 6'u1og^{1'5-a-2022 18 8'20222o-e'2022} ;*[#;;i;";

¶27

IA NO^10F2023

¶28

rrctron^{'151 CPC praying that ln the clrcu''llritarces sta-ted} Petition^underS rn the affrdavit^{fileri tt} . ,"1 J",t "' tn'"^{p"i tio'n in" u'on courr mt v be pleased to} i^{"tJr]i.Li,,". io rnitrate action agains ttht unofficral} direct^{the resPondtn} certificate^{by corrsrderirrgthe petitroners} respondent^{and to c; n} .,",ii. i. f,." "".te l^{- q} -zoz^{z,18 -8 -202 2 20-9 -? 022} representatlons^{date l}

¶29

¶30

Counsel^{for the Petiiioner:SRI CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV} *o., * counser^{for the Re' pondent No l} '3^{& t'} iiil.";Jro.tiLuElif'"o'

¶31

Counsel^{for the Rest ondent No 2: SRI P' SUDHEERRA^O-''SCFORlH} =^Tf:LANGANA '- - irnre ELEcrloN coMMlssloN

¶32

Counsel^{for the Re;pondentNo'5 & 6: SRI P KISHORERAO'} SC FOR^{TS ZILLA PARISHAI)}

¶33

Counsel^{for theRe spondent No'7: SRI PURNACHANORAREt)EY}

¶34

The Court^{made tt e following: ORDER}

{

I t

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE.I.SREENTVAS RAO

¶39

lY.P. No. 1710 OF 2o23

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This writ petition is filed for seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in not initiating action against the unofficial respondent who produced false caste certihcate in the Gram Panchayat elections in the year 2018 and cancel her caste certificate by considering the petitioner's representations on 13.O4.2022, 8.O8.2022, 20.Og.2022, 22.07.2022 and official corrcspondence of the authorities dated 22.08.2022, 23.09.2022, as illegal arbitrary and against the principals of natural justice.

¶42

Heard Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, learned Standing Counsel Sri P. Sudheer Rao, appearing for the respondent No.2, Sri P. Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri Purnachandra Reddy appearing for respondent No.7.

¶43

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent authorities to take action against the respondent No.7. He further submits that basing on the representations of the petitioner, respondent

¶44

¶45

¶46

No.3 cons:rt rtr:d a District Level Scrutiny^()onrni-lec itnd Joint Collectc,r, .J ryashankar Bhupalpally issue d Fcrrn-\I A uide RC.No.t)27 2, 9l12022 dated 29.12.2022 ancl trll cl:rtc rhey have not compleLr d the proceedings. He requested the cour t to direct respondent No.i) to completc lhe entire pro(rorjs and pass approprial.c lrders, in accordance with law, b1. firi^-rg reasonable time.

¶47

Lr:at nt:d counscl appearing for respondertl I\lo.;' rcquested the court to direct the respondcnt No.3 to pzrss ap[)r'op'iate orders after giving rpportunity to the responclent No.7.

¶48

In v erv ,tf the rival submissions mirde by tht respective parties, lr.itl Lout going into thc merits of the case, resp()ndent No.3 is directed o completc the proceedings in RC . No 02 1 2491 1 2022 afte r follc,w ng the due procedure under th,: I;rw ir^-rd after giving opportuni[ trr respondent No.7 within a periorl ol two (2) months from the Ca [e of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

A,:c, rrdingly, the writ petition is dispo serl o - No costs.

¶50

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous appli,: a.tic,ns, if any,

¶51

pendil1g in Lhis writ petition, shall stand closed

¶52

SI)/-V.KAVITHA ASSIS;T,AN* REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// St:6TlO-ll OFFICER

¶53

To, 1 The Princ:ipr rl Secretary to Panchayath Raj Departnent. Th€ State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶54

2 The Cbmmi ;sioner, The Telangana State Election Comm s-'ion .l st Floor, DTCP Br]ild ng, AC Guards, Hyderabad, The Drstrict Collector, Jai Shankar Bhoopalapally Dtstrict^P rnc'tayath^Raj Dpt), Bhoog alapally.

I {

cq*4-

{

The Diskict Panchayath Offtcer, Jat Shankar Bhoooatapatly District. 5 The Mandat^panshaih Devetopment Officer, Malahalrab M'anOat, Jat Shankar Bhoopalapally District.

¶60

6 The Grampanchayath, Yedlapalli, Malahalrao Mandal, Jai ShanKar

¶61

\ -^{Bhoopqlapqlly.Districtrepby tts Panchayath Secretary.} T One CC to SRI CHALAKATIVENIGI YADAV, Advoiate [OpUCl 8 One CC to SRI P, SUDHEER RAO, SC FoR THE TELANGANA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION [OPUC]

¶62

One CC to SRI P. KISHORE RAO, SC FOR TS ZTLLA PARISHAD IOPUCI 10 Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOpMENT, Higti Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶63

One CC to SRI.PURNACHANDRA REDIIY, Advocate [OPUC] 12 Two CD Copies BN

HIGH COURT

.\ ) DATED:24104/:1023

¶69

( (

¶70

¶71

--..
a,<br>ll : liil'?0?3 l
i.a

ORDER

WP.No.1710 'rf²⁰²³

{

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^{C OSTS} .1, rt

¶76

Gurram Ashok v. The State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurram Ashok 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

Baddi Ramya Vs The Government of Telangana

Payyavula Komuramma Vs The State Of Telangana And 10 Others

Rayala Kondala Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sulgam Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana And 5 Others

Gandra Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Sirajul Arfeen Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others