Writ petition challenging proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer concerning MPTC/ZPTC elections under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Counsel stated the cause did not survive; the High Court closed the petition as infructuous without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[321e ]
) !
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICET.MADHAVIDEVI
WRIT PETITION NO: 29987 OF 2016
Between:
A .satyanarayana, S/o.Chinaiah, Aged about 60Years,OccBusiness,Rl/o 5-62, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court maybe pleased to issue a Writ, or or direction and more pa(icularly in the nature of writ of It4andamus declaring the Procgs. No.F/3699/2016,dated 1-9-2016 of the 3rd respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona I and contraryto the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2006 and consequently set aside the Proceedings No.F/3699/201 6, dated 1-9-201 6
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WP MP. NO: 37096 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleasedto suspend the Procgs. No.F/3699/2016,dated 1-9-20t6 of the 3'drespondent, pending disposal of the writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NARESH REDDYCHINNOLLA
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1&6: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL OEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY (SC FORTG ZPP.MPP-GPPS)
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: VIVEK JAIN
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADIHVI DEVI
WRIT ON No.299 87 of2016
ORDER:
Learned counsel representing Sri C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and that it has become infructuous.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed as infructuous.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
SD/.N. S IHARI ASSISTANTREG TRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
(
HIGH COURT
DATED:1711212024
ORDER
1r{t sjtf ('L
(;
o
i) $ 3 l{Afl 2015
<br>t {) '.-cra_rar:
WP.No.299i37 of 2016
CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUTCOSTS ( * 7. L>l-{ 1oce'flr-!)
A. Satyanarayana
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept.
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division
The Election Returning Officer, MPTC/ZPTC Election-2016, Pargi Mandal
Sri Oppari Ravi
T. Madhavi Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
