Dismissed

Etikala Mallaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

Telangana HC22 Jan 2024WP/19349/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged allotment of Mamidipalle Gram Panchayat to the General (UR) category without following the rotation reservation system under a circular memo and Sections 9 and 15 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The court noted the Act had been repealed and replaced by the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, rendering the writ petition infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

Etikala Mallaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Election Law | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19349 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Etikala Mallaiah, S/o. Bheemaiah, aged 46^yrs., R/o.^{Mamidipalle Village,} Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by^{PrincipalSecretary,} Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, Government of^{AndhraPradesh,} Hyderabad.

¶13

The District Panchayat Officer, Sangareddy,^{Medak District.}

¶14

The District Collector, Medak District, Sangareddy.

¶15

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy,^{Medak District.}

¶16

The Election Commissioner, Government^{of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat iii the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more^{particularlyone in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus,^{declaringthe action of the respondentsin} allotting the Mamidipalle Gram^{Panchayat for General (UR) without following the} rotation system under reservation^{policy as contemplated under circularMemo} No.19839/E&Rl2O12-7 dated 1-6-2013^{and Sec.9and 15 of A.P. PanchayatRaj} Act 1994 is as illegal, arbitrary,^{high handed and violation of Article 14 and21 ot} Constitutio of lndia, and consequently^{direct the respondentsto allot the} Mamidipalli Grampanchayat to Schedule^{Caste as per rotation systemas}

¶19

contemprated un('er circurar Memo No.1g8 3gtE&Rt2012-7 dated 1-6-2013, by setting aside the irllotment for General (UR).

¶20

Counset for the petitioner: SRt S.LAKSHMTNARAYANA REDDY

¶21

COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NO.1 tO 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ. RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶22

Counset for the R,lspondent No.6: _

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

I I

¶26

THE^{HON'BLE SRI WSTICEK'SARATH} WRIT NNo^{.19349 of2013}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

ThC petitioner^{quesdoningtheaction of the} in a-llotting^{theMamidipalle Gram} resPondents for General^{(UR)withoutfollowingthe} PanchaYat policy^as under^reservatron rotation^system Memo Circular contemPlated'^under No. 19839/E&Rl2Ol2-7'^{dated 01'06'2O13and Section} gand15ofA.P.PanchayatRajAct,|994isillegaland arbitrary.

¶29

After^{frling ofthe writPetition'the A'P'} Panchayat^{Raj Act'1994 has been repelled and} Telangana^{PanchayatRaj Act' 2018 has comeinto force} in the Year,^2018'

¶30

In view^{of the same'no further ordersare} necessary^{in this matter and thereby' the Writ Petitron} has^{become infructuous'}

¶31

Recording^{the a-forementionedsubmission' the} Writ^{Petition is dismissed as infructuous' There shall} be no^{order as to costs'}

¶32

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous petitions, if any

¶33

p,ending, shall stand closed.

¶34

To,

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD/. K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRARF-\

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

One CC to SRI S.LAKSHMTNARAYANA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI

¶39

Two CCt; to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the 'State of --elangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶40

Two CCs; to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderab:rd [OUT]

¶41

Two CD {)opies

BSR

HIGH COTJRT

DATED:^2210112024

ORDER

/: ..
/': <br>1 3 i:tB 2ii:4
,t
! a-:t4

¶48

WP.No.19349^{of 2013}

¶49

^PETITION

¶50

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT}

¶51

AS INFRUCTUOUS,

¶52

WITHOUT^COSTS

Etikala Mallaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Etikala Mallaiah, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Asra Sulthana Vs The State of A.P.

Ramapuram Gram Panchayat, Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Sharadha Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Smt.G.Kavitha, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

G.Ramesh Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.Chandraiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its