Remanded

Panchimatla Madar Goud v. Swagarla Paramesh

Telangana HC8 Apr 2025WA/374/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against setting aside appellant's appointment as Vice-Chairman of Alair Agriculture Market Committee for non-residence. Conflicting Tahsildar certificates on residence were not considered by the Single Judge; matter remitted for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; writ petition remitted to learned Single Judge to consider residence certificates and decide afresh; no costs.

Panchimatla Madar Goud Vs Swagarla Paramesh — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[34461

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO :374 0F 2025

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 1 5 of the Letters patent writ preferred against the order dated 18-02-2025passed in W p No 35311 of 2024 and pass on th;fite of tne ffigh Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Panchimatla Madar Goud, S/o. Vehkataiah Goud, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Vice chairman of Agricurture rraarr<ei-comrn'iiiu,'"nrlir, R/ o. Motakondur Villagb, Motakondur Mandat, vrartriEr,rrrn"gl'ri6i.iii"t.

¶10

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.5

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Swag b rla Paramesh, S/o yadaiah, Ag.ed 35 years. Occ Agriculture, H.No.245, Ghnda Malla Viltage, Turkapatiy tVanaOai,-faOrOri rih'rulirgiri District.

¶13

... RE S PO ND ENTAA/RIT PETITIO N E R

¶14

The State of Telangana., Re p.b1 its APC and Secretary, Agriculture and

¶15

Cooperation Marketinq-1. De pt Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secr6tariit eutioingi,'Saifahad, Hyderabad.-

¶16

The rector of Agriculture [Vlarketing (FA C), Nampally Station Road, Hvd er bad.

¶17

The D strict Collector and Magistrate, (Agriculture, Co-o peration and

¶18

Marke ing) Yadadri Bhuvana giri District

¶19

The A$riculture Marketing Committee, Rep by its Secretary, Alair, yadadri Bhuvairagiri District.

¶20

,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4

¶21

t) Tanda.Pandu Rangam, S/o. Dasaiah, Aged about 6g years, Occ. Memberof Agriculture Marketbommitree, nrair tiirffi il"i;lJ;dJ,. Mandat, yadadri Bhuvarflagiri District.

¶22

( R6 is Not necessary party to this Writ Appeal)

¶23

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay L,e pleased to} suspend the operation of the order dated 18-02-2025^{in W.P.No. 35311 ot 2024} passed by this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal in the interest of^justice.

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. DAMODAR REDDY^{SR. COUNSEL} REPRESENT]NG FOR SRI. C RUTHWIK REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K JAGADEESHWARA RAO

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent NOs.2 to 4: Ms. B. MOHANA REDDY GP FOR AGRICULTURE

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent NO.5: SRI N. UMA SHANKAR SC FOR AMC

¶30

Counsel forthe Respondent NO.6: --

¶31

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶32

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶33

AND

¶34

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶35

WRIT APPEAL No.374 of 2o25

¶36

JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka yara)

¶37

Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri K. Jagadeeshwara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Ms. B. Mohana Reddy, learned Government pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri N. Uma Shankar, Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5. perused the record.

¶38

This appeal is filed challenging the order d,ated, 1g.O2.2O25 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.p.No.353 1l of 2024, whereby the appointment of appellant/respondent No.5 as Vice_Chairman of Alair Agriculture Market committee is set aside as he is not a resident of any of the .villages falling under the Arair Agriculture Market Committee.

¶39

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶40

appellant/respondent No.5 argued that the appellant belongs to Motatondur Village of Motakondur Mandal which falls under the Alair Agriculture Market Committee and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous.

¶41

V A.No.374 of 2025

¶42

¶43

The learnect^{counsel for respondentNo l/writ petitilner argued} that the appellant^{belongsto Katepaily Village of Motakortdur Mandal} which fal1s^{unclt:r the Agriculture Market Commilteeof l{othkur and} therefore,^{the irnpugned orderpassedby the learned Singk: Judgeis to} bc confirmecl.

¶44

The^{learnt:tlGovernmentPleaderfor Agriculture for respondent} No.2^{would submit that the appellant belongs to Katepally Villageof} Motakondur^{M:rndal which falls under theMothkurAgriculture} Market commirl.ee^{and does not fall under the Motakondur. village of} Motakondur^{lVl:rndal ofA1airAgricultureMarket Conrmitteeand} therefore, the^{appellantisnot entitled to be appointedas Vice-} Chairman of^{Alair Agriculture Market Committee'}

¶45

By u'ay^{of reply, the learned counselfor the appellant has referred} ro the Declaration^{Certihcateat PageNo.47of the mat3rial papers'} which was fibd^{byrespondentNo' l/writpetitioner'The said} CertificatervasissuedbytheNaibTahsildar,MotakonJurMandal, yadadri Bhongir District showing that the appellant is il^{resident of} Katepally Village of^{Motakondur Mandal.Further, referenceis also} made to the^{[reclaration CertificateatPage No' 55 isr;ued by the} Tahsildar, Motakondur^{Mandal, YadadriBhongir Districtshowing the} residence of tLLe appellant at^{Motakondur Village of Motakondur} Mandal

irtl

WANo.374 of 2025

Upon perusing both certificates issued by the Naib Tahsildar and the Tahsildar of Motakondur Mandal, yadadri Bhongirnistrict, we are of the considered opinion that said certificates showing different residences of the appellant are not considered by the learned Single Judge and therefore no reason is given for coming to a conclusion that the appellant is not a resident of villages faling under Alair Agriculture Market Committee. As such, we deem it necessary to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding on the certificates produced at Page Nos.47 and.S5 by the rival parties showing the residence of appellant at different villages i.e., Katepally and Motakondur, falling under different Agriculture Market committees.

¶51

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 1g.O2.2O25 in W.p.No.3S311 of 2024 and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to consider the aforesaid certihcates and decide afresh.

¶52

Asase quel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand

¶53

disposed of.

¶54

SD/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR JolNrvR^R

//TRUE COPYII

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The APC and Secretarv. Agriculture and Cooperation Marketing_|, Dept Dr.B.R.AmbedkarSecrbiariateuitaings,s-all'b"a j.,'Iyderauao.

¶59

The Director of Aoricutture Marketing (FA C), Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

¶60

J The District Collector and Magistrate,. (Agriculture, Co_operation and Marketing) Yadadri Bhuvanaglri District.^-

¶61

1. The Sec retary, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Alair, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Alair, Marketing Committee, Alair, yadadri

¶62

retary, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Alair, Agriculture Marketing Committee, Alair, Marketing Committee, Alair, yadadri Bhuvanagiri

¶63

. District.

¶64

The Section^{off,cer,writ DB Section,Highcourt for the Statec,f Telangana at} Hyderabad.

¶65

The Section^{officer,Postingsection,Highcourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad.

¶66

T.TheSectionofficer,NoN-SERVICE,HighCourtfortheStatecfTelanganaat Hyderabad.

¶67

B. One CC to^{SRl. C RUTHWIK REDDYAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶68

One CC to^{SRI Nl. UMA SHANKARSC FOR AMC [OPUC]}

¶69

10.One CC to SRl.^{K JAGADEESHWARA RAO Advocate IOPUCT}

¶70

11.Two CCs to GP^{for AGRICULTURE, High court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OtJ'I]

¶71

12.fwo CD CoPies, KKS KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:0 810412025

(

' '-:-,
3T \ i
1 5\li.
,.v
11 ' I
),Jl
.-.J'
',/ ,
k
,r-''

I
I

JUDGMENT

WA.No.374^{of 2025}

DISPOSING^{THE WRIT APPEAL} WITHOUT COSTS

¶82

C9o{'q
$-,-'
-r\q1t-

Panchimatla Madar Goud v. Swagarla Paramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchimatla Madar Goud v. Swagarla Paramesh

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

M/s. v S a Infra Projects Private Limited Vs The Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax

M/s.Tara Agro Agencies Vs The Appellate Joint Commissioner (St)

M/s Dayakar Electrical Vs Union of India

M/s.Shri Siddi Vinayaka LeiSures Private Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner (St)

Chandra Sena Reddy Proddutur Vs The State of Telangana

Ramkishan Desai, Hyderabad. Vs Govt. of A.P. and 2 Others