Disposed

Srikanth Setti v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2024WP/17333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged deletion of their names from the voters' list for the General Elections, 2024, claiming arbitrary rejection of Form-6 applications. The High Court held the petition not maintainable in the present proceedings and disposed of it by granting liberty to approach the District Collector by way of appeal. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to prefer an appeal before the District Collector, Khammam.

Srikanth Setti Vs State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^32e6 ]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 17333^{OF 2024}

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . Srikanth Setti, Sio Manohar Setti, aged 44 yearc, Occ. private employee, Fl/o H.No. 6-5'l , near Ram Temple,^{Ramakrishnapuram, Chintakani, Khammam-} 507208.

¶10

Jhansi Lakshmi Bai Setti, Wo^{Srikanth Setti, aged 39, Occ. housewife, R/o} H.No. 6-51, near Ram Temple,^{Ramakrishnapuram, Chintakani, Khammam-} 507208.

¶11

Setti Satish, S/o Setti Manohar,^{aged 45 years, Occ. private employee,Fl/o} H.No. 6-51 ,'near Ram Temple,^{Ramakrishhapuram, Chintakani, Khammam-} 507208.

¶12

Setti Narmada, Wio Setti Satish,^{aged 40 years, Occ. housewife, R/o H'No'6-} 5i, near Ram iemple, Ramakrishnapuram,^{Chintakani, Khammam- 507208'}

¶13

Ravinder Reddy^{Kuruguntla, S/o PeddaSaida RgOly} [urugyntla., .agPd⁵³ - y;rs, Occ. bus'iness,"Rfo H.lt9 7-8-1.9t2-0, H.No.5-1 to S-end,6-1 to 6-1 19, Ramakrishnapuram village,^{Chintakani' Khammam.}

¶14

Sunitha Kuruguntla, Wo^{RavinderReddyKurug-untla,} lged .about^{48 ye-ars'} - dC. nouiew"ite, R/o H.No.7-8-19120, H.No.5-t to s-end,6-'l to 6-1 '19, Ramakrishnapuram village,^{Chintakani,Khammam.}

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 . State of Telangana,^{(Revenue)rep'by its Principal Secretary, Revenue} Department, Secretariat^{buildings, Hyderabad.}

¶18

The Chief Electoral^{Offrcer,9th Floor, B.R.K.R.Building,Adarsh Nagar,} Hyderabad^- 500063

¶19

The District Collector,^{Khammam district'}

¶20

The District Election Officer,^{DistrictElectionffice, Khammam'}

¶21

The Electoral Registration^{officer cum Revenue Divisional officer, Khammam} division, Khammam dis{rict

¶22

The Tahsildar, Chintakani^{mandal, Khammamdistrict.}

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

l I]i, LI

¶25

' crrcumstances Petition under stated Articie in 226---of the constitution.of rndia praying that in the the "niirriiiii"i"inillli,,,n, the Hish courr may be 'x,;i:il:il:.#:J J;:,t:,."f."'.^{0i,""ii"",",1,.I'il.n.,r,,-rvone in the natuie} or r,o i"g" #l' 1^j, or tre petiiLl ; ;"', ; ffi I"n Ji :,i"#J;ij;.[",. 8?T:,: .:"ii " " " peopre - 2024 in respect_ or rvrrJni,"-i"oil,#ffi?rr1,T"ffiffi:IT,."?,:l oesprte the representations_of ," p"i,ri""ri'j'n=a ,"Ji".ting the apprications of the ##.tl,trur*ffffi

¶26

IANo: 10F 2024

¶27

," ,n" li,Tr."?,;i:.fi"..?':l-151.cpc^prayins thar. in the circumstances stated g'1""t 11" -i",0;;";i,"i:o:[LlJiif"".H:, $",#nI 99,.t mav 0"";,"J; " Assembly Constitueno, tttalXt-i-i-^':^:':,^{or Ine petitioners} in the Madt' writ petition.^{'' ' '14)Jr x-n",ir.n'o"i#"i';""fr:l]XTil:J:} *:ry:fl:X:

¶28

Counsel for the petitioners: SRI c. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1,3 & 6: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.2,4 & 5: SRI p. SUDHEER RAO

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

¶33

l:'.;-=.'</ ,/ ( '. ..t

¶34

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V.^{BHASKAR REDDY}

¶35

WRIT PETITION No. 17 333^of2024

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

.^{This writ petition has been filed seekingto declare the} action the respondents in not^{includingthe names of the} petitioners in the voters' list^{preparedfor General Electionsof} House of People, 2024 in respect^{of Madhira Constituency(114)} of Khammam District, despite the^{representationsofthe} petitioners and in rejecting their applications^{under Form-6 as} prescribed under the Registration of Electors^{Rules, 1960 as} illegal, arbitrary, violative^{of principlesof natural justice and for} other appropriate reliefs.

¶38

The petitioners claim to^{be theresidentsof} Ramakrishnapuram Village,^{Chintakani Mandal,Khammam} District. It is stated that^{the petitioners are having landed} properties in the said village and^{they are also cultivating the} lands and paying house tax^{and others taxes from time to time'} It is further stated that^{despitethe petitioners having VoterIDs} issued by the Election Commission^{of India, their nameswere} shown as deleted in the draft^{publicationof electoral list, which}

¶39

¶40

CVBR, J Wp_17333 _2024

¶41

constrained them to submit online applications in Form_6 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 for registration. The .grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents without having any manner of right and without taking consideration the documents filed in support of their claim, rejected the said applications on the ground that they are not the ordinary residents of the said village.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing tbr respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that on verification of the documents filed by the petitioners, as it was found that they are not ordinary residents of Ramakrishn;lpuram Village, Chintakani Mandal ald they are residing at l{yderabad, their na_rnes were deleted vide orders dated 23.01.2024 and 24.OI.2O24 passed by the Electoral Registration Ofhcer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Division i.e., respondent No.5 herein, a copy whereof has also been furnished to the petitioners through Registered post; if the petitioners are having any grievance with regard ro the said orders passed by respondent No.S, they are at liberty to prefer

¶43

¶44

CVBR, J Wp_L7333 _2oza

¶45

¶46

an appeal before the District^{Election Officer & Collector,} Khammam; and^{as such, the presentwrit petition is not} maintainable.

¶47

.In^{view of the same, the writ petition is disposedof by} granting liberty to the^{petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal} before the District^{Collector, Khammam, if they are so aggrieved} by the orders dated^{23.O1-2024 and 24'OL'2O24passedby} respondent^{No.5, duly enclosing all the documentsin support} of their claim. On^{Iiling such appeal,the District Collector'} Khammam, in turn,^{shall consider thesame and pass} appropriate orders^{thereon, in accordance with law' within a} period of two weeks from^{the date of receipt of such application} and communicate^{the same to the petitioners'}

¶48

Asa sequel thereto,^{miscellaneouspetitions, ifany'}

¶49

pending sha1l stand^{closed.There shali be no order as to costs'}

¶50

SD/-P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ujl

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary,^{Revenue Department, State of Telangana'}

¶57

Secretariai buildings.^Hyderabad.

¶58

z. iie ciieiLect^{ialbm6et, 9th Floor, B.R.K.R.Buitding,Adarsh Nagar,} Hvderabad - 500063

¶59

The District Collector, Khammam^district.

¶60

+. The District Election^{Officer, District Election Office, Khammam'} d: iil; EE;1jiar ne-glsiri1on^{ofrrcer cum RevenueDivisionatofficer, Khammam} division, Khammam district. ---

¶61

,, , ::i,:._r ,i

¶62

¶63

The Tahsildar,^{Chintakani mandal, Khammam district'} i: o;; btiii-s*^{-c r{Avt CHnuorinSEKHAR,-Advocate[oPUC]} B. il; cc i;^{sRi p- suoneeRRAO, Adv-ocate-to.?uc1} U: i;; d6.^{jo-Cp rOC neVeUue, HignCourt for the State of Telangana} tourl 10.Two CD^CoPies, \ BN BSw

br.

Iil

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811112024

ORDER

,:t 'f rl= Sr4
o
a (-,
()
0 { JAil 2025
t'+
.-DrrCqi:

¶72

WP.No.17333 of 2024

¶73

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

L3CO
)
l,

Srikanth Setti v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srikanth Setti v. State of Telangana

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

Kongari Sathaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Gyaneshwar Goud Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary to revenue

P. Dass Goud Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to

Mohammad Adbul Sather Vs State of Telangana

S. Kishore Vs The state of Telangana

Mohd Saleem Uddin Vs The State of Telangana