Dismissed

Mudavath Ramesh Naik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Apr 2024WP/9361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of a Gram Panchayat Ward Member. The Court held that since the period of ineligibility had elapsed, the cause of action no longer survived, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing the Writ Petition as infructuous. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions standing closed.

Mudavath Ramesh Naik Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O:9361 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mudavath.Ramesh Naik, s/o Mudavath chandru, Aged about 30 years, occ. Labour lr.".rgnt!y^{Ward MemberWard No...7, Kistapur Tharida,pangal} Winrprrtny District (Erstwhile Mahabubnagar district). ^,{and;i

¶9

....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of relangana, Rep.by its principar secretary, panchayath Rai and Kural Development Department Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶12

The State Election Commissioner, Telangana State,^.l st Floor, DTCp Buildings Opp. PTI Buitdings, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶13

The District collector, And District Election Authority wanaparthy District Wanaparty (Erstwhile Mahabubnagar district)

¶14

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila^ptda parishad Wanaparthy District Wanaparty (Erstwhlie lvla habubnagai districty

¶15

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, pangal Mandal, Wanaparthy District (Erstwhlie Mahabubnagar district)

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Anicle 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 wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.SO3/TSECULBSMNP/Pa ngallGPsl212o( 1 3s) dated 26 t o3t2o21 whereby the petitioner has ,i been disquatified under the Provisions of relangana panchayath Raj Act, 201g i RAff. Telangana Pancahyath Rai (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2018 from

¶18

contesting^{in any elections for three years and from holing the exitingoffice on the} ground of non^{submission of election expenditure statementin respectof the} e|ectionsheldinJanuary,20lgandtheresultsofpetitionerdeclaredon 31t1l2O19^{as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of NaturalJusticeand} unconstitutional^{against the Articles14' '19 and 21 of the Constitutionof lndia and} fundamentalRightsGuaranteedUndertheConstitutionandtosetasidethesame and direct^{the respondentsto act in accordancewith law'}

¶19

l.A.NO: 1 0F²⁰²¹

¶20

Petition^{UnderSection 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin}

¶21

the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High court may be pleasedto stay} of all further^{proceedingsinitiatedunder Proceedings No'} No.903/TSECby the 2nd

¶22

ULBs/WNPiPangal/GPs/2020(138)^{dated2610312021issued} respondent^{and thereby order to continue the petitioner as the 7th WardMember} of the Kistapur^{Gram Panchayath, PangalMandal' Wanaparthydistrictpending} disposal^{of the writ} Petition'

¶23

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: SRI RAVENDARSAMALA}

¶24

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'1 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL} DEVELOPMENT

¶25

Gounsel^{for the Respondent Nos'2 & 3 : SRI P'SUDHEERRAO}

¶26

Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'4 & 5 : SRI G'NARENDERREDDY}

¶27

The Court^{madethe following ORDER}

¶28

THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.9361 of 2O2l

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard.

¶32

This Writ Petition is hled questioning the impugned Order dated 26.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 declaring the petitioner as ineligible for a period of three years from ttre date of order to contest in any elections to be held for any post under Section 23 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2O18 and as per Rule 106 (3) and 1O6 (7) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2018.

¶33

As the above said period was elapsed, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and the Writ Petition has become inlructuous.

¶34

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶35

As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/- T. TIRUMALA^DEVI ASSISTANT^REGIS

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

SECTIO FFICER

¶39

To 1. Two CQs to^{GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURALDEV' HighCourt for} tl* Strt" of Telangana^{at Hyderabad' tOUTl.^^} .^,

¶40

2 One CC to^{Sri Ravendar Samala,Advocalelol-'-l'.lu.l.} 3 o;; aa io Sri^{c.ltarenderReddy,Advocate-(oPUC)} 4 One CC to^{Sri P.Sudheer Rao, Advocate (oPUU)} 5 Two CD CoPies

SA KKS c\G

HIGH COURT

i DATED:0310412024

i ORDER

1 H F s rA 14:
(
)q
oc 10l tJrl 202f
zaI
t t
.OeSP.Tc

¶46

WP.No.9361 ot 2021

¶47

I DISMISSING THE W.P

¶48

AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶49

@roo**

Mudavath Ramesh Naik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudavath Ramesh Naik 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

Sri. Jadhav Gopal Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Diviti Raj Das Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Rajender Kumar Jain Vs The Special Deputy collector (La), Unit-I,Orr

Lingala Ramya Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Smt. Parveen Sultana Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Potla Laxmaiah , Laxman Vs The State of Telangana