Challenge to merger of a gram panchayat into Karimnagar Municipal Corporation under an amendment to the Telangana Municipalities Act, on the ground that statutory rules were not followed. The court, following its earlier orders holding that the Act prevails over inconsistent Rules, dismissed the writ petition.
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.
[3446 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2921 OF 2025
Between:
Pittala Ravinder, S/o Venkataiah Aged about 60 years, Occ- Agriculture Rio Chintakunta Village, Kothapally Mandal Karimnagar Disirict Telangana-
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in merging Chintakunta Gram Panchayath with Karimnagar Municipal Corporation by including the same in Sl.No. 2 of the Schedule ll of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 published in Telangana Gazette on 0410112025 without following procedures laid down in The
I
a i I i I
i I I I i
i I I j I I
A.P. Municipalities (lnclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/ from tlre jurisdiction of the Municipalities/l',Jagara Panchayat) Rules, 2015 as arbitrrry, illegal and violative of principles of naturaljustice and consequently set asid(,, the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petitic,n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circuntstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased pleased to direct tre respondents not to take further action in pursuance amendment made in Act 4 of 2025 wherein Chintakunta Grarnpanchayat is merged witlr Karintnagar Municipal Corporation and includ inq the same in Schedule ll Sl. N: 2 of Telangana Municipalities Act, 20.1 9 published in Telangana Gazette tt 0410112025, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SARASANI RAHUL REDDy
c o u n s e I ro r t h e R e s p o n d e n ts N o' 1 : 3 F' r?X="tff=t$t%"d M r N r s rRAr r o N
Counsel for the Respondents No.2 : SRI E.VENKATA REDDy, Gp FOR MA&UD Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : GP FOR PANCHAYATH RA.,
counser ror the Respondents No'4 ' t^tr'rt'Iilff,T['J$]-r,r= AFFATRs
Counsel forthe Respondents No.5 : GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel forthe Respondents No.6: SRI K.SIDDHARATH REDDy, SC FOR KMC The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.292 L of 2025
ORDER: (Per the Hon'bte the Acttng Chief Justice Sujoy pout)
Sri Rahul Reddy Sarasani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri G.veeraswamy, learned Government pleader for General Administration Department, for respondent No.1; Sri E.Venkata Reddy, learned Government pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.2; Sri D.Surender Kumar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs, for respondent No.4; and Sri K.siddarth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6.
4 This Court in the aJoresaid writ petition recorded as under:_
1
"Sr i S.Satyam Rcddy, iearned Setlior Counsel irpperu-ing for Sri S.RahulReddy,learnccl counsr I lor the pctiti rLrer; Sri G.Vee rasu'amy, lcarnedGt,vr:rnment l)lcader for Gcneral Adrninistration,for resporlci':ntNo.1 irr-rd Ms. GudipaLi Sharvani,leartledcounsel |r-'1rrcs:nting Sri KrishnaReddyPutta, lcarttt:rl cotlnsel lirr-respondcnt No.6.
ll. Wit'r Lhc <:onsent firtally heard
"5!'9, Mornbad (by merging N4oir-r rbad' Hirn i1'2r11-rnagar, Yenka pally, (llrrlkur. Murthuz:rguda, Peddamarigalaram,Surangaland Azi t aqar G rampanchavals.
.1. Lerrrned counsel for the petitioner raiscd rt singular r:onterLtiorr to assail thc impugncd Ametldmen tAct that bcfor: bringing the Grampanchayatsu'ithin t}'re ambit of nrur-ricipalitics, the rcspondents hadtol'rl ou' the sLiltutlrv rules namely:- ThcAndhrilPraclesh Municipatitics (lnclusion or Exclusiorlr>lAreas inlo/ i'om the Jurisdiction of theMunicipalilit s/Nagar Pancralats) Rules, 20t5(Rules, 2015).l'l'rc:'e Rules havc-rot bce n follou,cd. tn the abselccofoliorving r hose .-ulcs. the impugned enactmenL is bad inI Lw
.r. Or Ll'rt: other hand, lcarned GovernmentPIt aderfor \ilur-ricipal Administration supported theinrpugned rrmerrlment and submits that beforeL:'tisztntendment, irn o rlilrurncc rvas brought into force,u'hercirLsimilar Lrxerci,;e of bringing the Grampanchrrlatsin municipality was the subject matter ofchrrllengein W.P.l'l r. 1.5 194 of 2024 and batch and thc saidwrit petiticr-rs u,ere dismissed by common or<le: dated
3
05.12.2024. Now same ordinance has taken shape of full-pledged enactment. In view of said order, no interference can be made in the impugned amendment.
(3) The State l,egislature may, by way of amendment to this Act, modify or add or a.lter schedule I or II of this Act so as to,-
(a) form a new Municipality by separation of local area lrom an,r' Municipality, or by uniting two or more local areas or part of areas, or by uniting any local area to a part of Municipality;
(b) include within a Municipality any local area;
(c) exclude from a Municipality, any area comprised therein;
(d) constitute any local area as a Municipality;
(e) atter the name o[ any Municipality;
(f) revise the boundary of municipal area;
(g) dcscribe the boundaries of the Municipatity;
(h) abolish a Municipality.
4
r)bser\ e that said contention is misconct:ived. V,'hcn the nother Ar;t namely, the Telangana Munrcipalir.ics Act, .2O19, in sub-Section 3 of Section 3 pe-rrits the LegisLirtnre to amend the Act zrnd forn new {unicr palitics, the Legislature has donc it rl it rin lour (rorn( r s ol Law. Thc provisions of the Act zrs u',:ll sctl.led, irre or .r l-righer pcdcstal than the provisions t f Rttles. ln ot rcr ivords, Rules are madc under thc .< t anrl the I?ulcs. crrnnot govern thc provisrons of tlri Aci. SlecIion 3 13) is i n ir-rdependenlenablingprovisior.
t 0. 'l'his Court also, in the prcvious r turcl of litiga ior-i in WP.No.25194 of 2024 and bat:1r, clirted t)5.7:' ..),O24 , opincd as under:
" 18 Tlrr-rs, from perusal of Section 29!) of th,: 20l9 Act. it is evidcnt that thc Rules framed u n<lcr Lhe 1965 Acl rr, saved. providcd thc same are n()l in(urslilctll with tho provisions of rhe 2O19 Act. Thc I?u1es, 20I5 are inconsistent with the substantivc prot rsiol ts olSe< tion 3 of the 2019 Act. Therefore. thcafrrr,:said Ru r s are no longcr in force. For the alorcment or.rcd reasSn the contentron that the Ordinalcc 3 ol 2C 24 is in r ontravention of Rule 3 of the Rrrlcs 2t-) 5 is ,mis,-r'q1qe1vq!!.
(Emphasis supplicd)
i 1. I r vieu' of foregoing discussion, \'c arc u titblc to l-rold t rat for not follorving the Rules, Amet-rcln Lcrlt Act <:an be dcr:lzrred as unconstitutional.
I I
5
,/'
Miscellancous petitionspending, if any, shall stand closed."
COSTS
Miscellaneous petitionspending,if any, shall stand closed'
SD.K.SREERAMA MURTHY EPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 One CC to SRI SARASANIRAHUL REDDY,Advoc
a e IoPUCI
BSK
LS
HIGH COURT
DATED:21 10412025
ORDER
I E{"
I
)
.s
*\ +
l,
lr
\ +* .,'/
)
rH+
I
WP.No.2921 of 2025
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
(n,
l
\9
'"'11
)rt
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the merger of a gram panchayat with a municipal corporation via amendment to the Telangana Municipalities Act is invalid for non-compliance with the 2015 Rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Pittala Ravinder
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. General Administration Department
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Law Department
The District Collector, Karimnagar District
Sujoy Paul
Renuka Yara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
