Disposed

Sri. Jangala Kanthaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Nov 2023WP/31835/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus declaring the installation of a village goddess statue in front of his house illegal and directed authorities to stop it. The Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage, directing Respondents to consider representations and pass appropriate orders within a week.

What did the court decide?

Directions were issued to Respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within one week.

Sri. Jangala Kanthaiah Vs The State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰³ ]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶5

. PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3'1835 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri. Jangala Kanthaiah, S/o. Jangala Sudershan, Aged 40^years, Occ Business, Rl/o.H.No.427, l adhin Puram Village, Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State ofTelangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat building, Hyderabad.

¶13

.The District Collector, Suryapet District.

¶14

The Grampanchayat Madhin Puram, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary Madhin Puram Village; Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶15

Temple lnauguration Commlttee, Rep. by its Chairman Mr. Nandyala Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age about 50 years, Occ Sarpanch, Madhin Puram Village, Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under F.rlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF I/IANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents herein more particularly the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking any action pursuant to representations dt. 0811112023 and 1411112023 submitted by the Petitioner against illegally, arbitrarily behaving that inciting religious hatred in decided to install the village goddess (BODRAI SRI SRI THALA DEVI) scheduled fixed on 2111112023 lo 2411112023 in lvlodhin Puram Village, Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District by the 4th Respondent and his committee members and his committee members in the front of Petitioner's house as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural^justice and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein to forthwith to stop the installation of the village goddess (BODRAI SRI SRI THALA DEVI)

¶18

scheduled fixed on 2111112023 lo 2411112023 in lr,4odhin Puram Village, Chiwemla Ivlandal, Suryapet District by the 4th Respondent and his committee members. t.A.NO :1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein to forthwith to stop the illegat installation of the village goddess (BoDRAl sRl sRl rHALA DEVI) scheduted fixed on 21111t2023 lo 24t1112023 in Modhin Puram Village, Chiwemla lvlandal, Suryapet District by the 4th Respondent and his committee members.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PALLE SRTHARINATH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEV

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI P.KISHORE RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : ---

¶24

The Court made the following ORDER

¶25

)

¶26

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.31835 of 2o23

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶30

relief

¶31

"to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents herein more particularly the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking any action pursuant to representations dt.O8/11/2023 and 14 / 17 /2023 submitted by the Petitioner against illegally, arbitrarily behaving that inciting religious hatred in decided to install the village goddess (BODRAI SRI SRI THALA DEVI) scheduled fixed on 2|/LI/2O23 to 24/tl/2023 in Modhin Puram Village, Chiwer.nla Mandal, Suryapet District, by the 4th Respondent and his committee mernbers and . his cornmittee^. members^. in the front of Petitioners house as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein to forthwith to stop the installation of the village goddess (BODRAI SRI SRI THALA DEVI) scheduled fixed on 21 lLl/2O23 to 24/ll/2123 in Modhin Puram Village, Chiwemla Mandal, Suryapet District, by the 4th Respondent and his committee members."

¶32

With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition

¶33

is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶34

Heard Sri P.Sri Harinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for

¶35

¶36

Paachayat R.j for respondent Nos.I and ) Sri^p.Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 arrd notice in respect of respondent No.4 is dispensed with. perused the record.

¶37

4 ' Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4_Committee is trying to install the goddess (BODRAI SRI SRI THALA DEVI) in front of the petitioner,s house. He further submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.3/Gram panchayat on 08.11.2023, arld also submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 14.11.2023, requesting them to stop the said installati on in front of the petitioner,s house. In spite of the same, respondents have not taken aly action and requested this Court to direct the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner. 5 Learned Assistant Government pleader as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3rlGram Panchayat submits that the respondents wili consider the representations dated Og.11.2023 and 14. 17.2023, and

¶38

,l=

¶39

-:3

¶40

requested this Court to grant reasonable time, for the sarne.

¶41

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties, and without going into the merits of the case, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 08. ll.2o23 and 14.11.2023, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law forthwith, after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 within a period of one (O1) week from

¶42

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. No costs.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶45

stand closed.

¶46

nssrsiRlirrilAlS*fF //TRUE COPY// i',^{- -} tl::::,T;^T

¶47

\ To 1 The Principal Secretary,^panchayat Raj and Rural ,"uu,o'."n,, State of Telanoana at Hvderabad.

¶48

2 The District Collector, Suryapet District.

¶49

3 Il:.l1l:h.ly^1t_!9"I9!?ryt^{G-r:lr.,panchayarMadhinpuram, Madhin puramviilase,} unrwemta Mandat, Survapet District.

¶50

4 IF 9kilg,L:mple^{lnaugurarion Commitree,Mr.Nandyata JanardhanReddy,} s/o. venkat Reddv. Aoe about.so.years, Occ Sarpanch, Midhin puram Vittage, '' Chiwemla Mandal. Sirvaoet District.

¶51

5 TW-O CCS tO GP FOR PEIICHNVAT RAJ AND RURAL DEV, High COUrt fOr thE StAtC of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶52

6 One CC to Sri Palie Sriharina'th, Abvocate [OpUC] 7 One CC to Sri P.Kishore Rao, Advocate (OPUC)^'

¶53

Two CD Copies

SA GJP 6

HIGH COURT

DATED:1711112023

ORDER

STAT€.
1
v
,q
loo 1 g fit\ C't
a

WP.No.31835 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

Oottu

r\ €

Sri. Jangala Kanthaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jangala Kanthaiah v. The State of Telangana

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

Fisheries Co-operative Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

K.Vinayalka Lakshmi, Vs Prl.Secy., Mines and Geology, Dept., Hyd., and 3 Others

The Kuravi Gram Panchayat, Vs Bukya Ramu

Kacham laxmi Narsavva Vs The District Collector (Panchayat Wing)

Dheeravath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/S.Bajaj Bakewell Udyog Private Limited, Haryana Vs S.M. Sudhakar, R.R.Dist. and 3 Others