A writ petition challenging reservation in Gram Panchayat elections was dismissed as infructuous based on counsel's submission that the cause no longer survives due to an order in related writ appeals.
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.
t3s02I
HIGH COURT FOR TPIE SI .AT HYDERiJiDOFTELANGANA (special Original Jurisdiction)
'Hi,:,i,Lli3:,[5i13+I,ff ,o".J33F*
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
WRIT PETITIONNO:620 0F 2019
Between:
AND
...PETITtONERS
2 J3! ifi: n!: I:'t*t#ji,!"rt SL itsp ri n cip a r secre ra ry, rrib a r werra re,
3 Jffitsffi fl tr+"*-tBT,fr :i';J"",:re,ansana,Repbyitscommissioner,
/ District, presently Jayashanker Bupalpally District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Arlicle 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ cl lt/andamus, declaring the action of respondents No.5 in issuing the proceeding No. E/914/2018 dl. 29-12-2018 declaring 23 villages of Mangapet Mandai as reserved to ST (Women) and ST (General) basing on the abstract of the rese.valrons prepared by the 5th and 6th respondents on 26-1220'18, treating the lVlangapet Mandal as Schedule Area and subsequent election schedule of 1st respondent dt. 01-0'1-2018, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles14,21 and pitra 6 (1)of V schedule to the constitution of lndia and contrary to the subsisting rnterim orders of the Hon'ble Court dt:08-05-2114 and 4-6-2014 in W.A.NO. 743 and 744 of 2014 and consequently to suspend the impugned election schedule is:;iieci by the'lst respondent on 01-01-2019 basing on the 5th respondent proceedrngs dt 29-12-2018 and abstract of respondents No. 5 and 6 dt.26-12 2018 to the extent of 25 gramapanchayats in the Mangapet Mandal, Jayashanker Bhupalcally District (old Warangal District).
lA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Sectlon 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned election schedule issued by the 1st respondent on 01-012019 basing on the 5th respondent proceedings dl.29-12-2018 and abstract of respondents No 5 and 6 dl 26-12-2018 to the extent of 25 gramapanchayats in the Mangapet N4anda. Jayashanker Bhupalpally District (old Warangal District), pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. A. K. MUKHEED
I l
,ri"counser for the RespondentNos.1 and 2: Gp FoR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMNET
Counsel for the Respondent No.3,4 and 5: SRI p. SUDHEER RAO, SC
Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, SC
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
SK, J W.P.No.62O of 2019
I
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITTON No.620 of 2OL9
ORDER:
This writ petition 1S filed seeking the following
relief;
\
"to i""u. an appropriate writ, order or d.irection more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents No.S in i"".rire-in. procer:din-g No. E1914/2OtA dt 29.12.2O1e aectarini Z3 vrllages of Mangapet Mandal as reserved to ST Women arid sl General basing on the abstract of the reservation" p."p"a.a Uy the Mangapet Mandal sth and 6rh as respondents Schedule Area on 26.12.201g and ""U""q".rrt t...iirrg -"'f8"tion-tt " schedute of I., respondent dt 01.0i.2018 ^" il.;;i; ;.Li;;"ry, and violation of Arricles 14,2l and. para 6(l) of V""t.a"j. to the consriturion of India and contrary'to tte sut"iJr,g inrerinr orders of the Honourable Couri at Os.OS.z0la-ana 4 6.2Ot4 in w A Nos.743 and, .244 of 2014 anJ ;;";4"";y to susoend the impugned election schedule issued UV tt" i"t respondent on 01.01.2019 basing on the 5th reipondent proceedings dL 29.12 201g and abslract of.."porra".rt" No. S and 6 d' 26.1).2018 ro the extent of 25 gramapanchavats in the M, ngaper Mandat, Jayashanter Bhuiatpaif5i.til'ftra Waran 3al Districrl".
2
SK' J W.P.No.62Oof 2019
Courtin W'A'No'744 of 2Ol4 dated 05'07 '2023' the causein the writ Petitiondoes not survlve ' 4 Recordingthe submission of the leamedcounsel theWrit Petition isdismissed as for the Petitioner'
infructuousNo orderas to costs' Petitions,if anY Pending in this 5. Miscellaneous writ Petition,sha1l standcloqqd' sD'-P
sD'-PPADMANA"-Et,EFRRX SECTIOTiOFFICER
/ITRUEGOPYII
To,
H shc'u. r'r'ihe
r $tE;.i[pgtr[1ry6ffitri$di:,'::
5.Two CD Coptes TJ LS $
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0111012024
ORDER
/.::':_*-r\
1
,, STI .. i;
t(
21i 0':t r.Ji'l
(j
t
I
,r.l
D
WP.No.620 ot2019
DISMISSING THEWRIT FETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS.
GT{4 '-W
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives in light of a subsequent order in related appeals?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.A.No. 743 and 744 of 2014Referred¶52
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Komatineni Purnachandra Rao
State of Telangana
K. Sarath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
