Garugu Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Pati Jagan Mohan^{Reddy,S/o P JanardhanReddy.Ag^edabout} ,47J93t:' Occ.Agiiculture 1-16,^{Peilda Mangalaram, Moinabad, RangareddyDistnct'} Telangana - 501504

¶12

3 Athaouram Sadanandam Goud,^{S/o A Janardan GoudAged about 40-years,} occ.Agriculture 2-4g,^{Himayathnagar Moinabad, Rangareddyljistflct,} Telangana - 500075

¶13

Mangali Ramulu, s/o^{Kistaiah Aged about 49 yeals.} ^occ.Agriculture^Fl./o1- 148,Aziz Nagar, Rangareddy^{Disirict Telangana - 500075}

¶14

S.ByagariRaju,S/oBygariRamuluAgedabout39years,Occ'Agricultur^e.1-69' - Si,iirsui, Il.jinauao F.o Surangal, "Rangareddy District, Telangana - 501504

¶15

6 Nvalati Laxman. S/o Pentaiah Aqed^{about 47 yeafs,occ. Agriculture 2-32,} - V6ntiip"tie, Yenkepalle Rangared-dy District Telangana - 500075

¶16

T.ShabadPraveenKumar,S/oShabadPrakashAgedabout3T.years'occ. Agriculture 1-31 , Moinabad^{RangareddyDistrictTelangana - 5015U4}

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

AND

¶19

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Principal Secretary^to^9^ovt' General} nOministration Dep?rtment^{Secietariat, Hyderabad- 500022}

¶20

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary to} 9oyt,tM,Y"'."lqgL^-, Administration and-Urban^{Development Department,secretanat, HyoeraDao} 500022

¶21

3.TheStateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipalsercretarytoGo.vtPanch^ayat - i;ir.d'Rr;ai oer6top*ent' Defartment, Secrethriat, Hyderabad 5oo o22

¶22

The State of Telangana,^{Rep.by its Secretary to GovtLegalAffairs'}

¶23

iijii.j"irc Arir"i'i ;ft l'.|tli;,-1]il oepartm6nt, secretaiat, Hvderabad 500 022

¶24

The District Ccllector, Ranga Reddy District, Kongarakalan Vi lage, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Distaict - 501510^-

¶25

O In". MohabadlVlunicipality, Rep. By its Commissioner, Moinacad, Ranga Reddy District Telangana

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

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, orrier or direction, more particularly one in the nalure of a writ of Mandamus declarinq the action of respondents in merging Moinabad, Himayathnagar,'/enakapally, Chilkur, Murthuzaguda, pedda Mangalaram, Surangal and Aziz Nagar Gram Panchayats and constituting Moinabad Municipality by including the same at sl.No.54c of the schedule I of relangana Municipalities Act, 2019 published in Telangana Gazette on 04.01 .202s w thout foilowing procedures laid down in The A.P. Municipalities (lnclusion or Exr;lusion of Areas into/from the jurisdict on of the Municipalities/Nagara panchayat) Rules, 2015 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and cr>nsequently set aside the same

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶29

Petition undr:r {lection^'15'l cpc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed in s.rpport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to take further action in pursuance amendment made in Act 4 of 2025 wherein tulo nabad, Himayathnagar, yenakapally, chilkur, Murthuzaguda. Pedda Mangalaran', surangal and Aziz Nagar Gram panchayats a.e soughtlo be Jne.rged^{and constitr-rtingMoinabad Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and} including the same in lsl.No.54c of the Schedule I of relangana Muriicipalities Act.. 2019 published in I-elangana Gazette on 04012025 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶30

counsel for the Petitioners: sRl s. sAwAM REDDY REPRESENTING FoR sRt. SARASANI RAHUL REDDY

¶31

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI G. VEERASWAMY cp FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

¶32

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: cp FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV

¶33

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶34

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: Gp FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondent No.S: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶36

counsel forthe Respondent No.6: sRr purrA KRTSHNA REDDY sc FoR Mc

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

] i I

¶39

/1.

¶40

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF^{JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL}

¶41

AND

¶42

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE^{RENUKA YARA} WRIT PETITION No.2943 of2025

¶43

ORDER:^(Per the Hon'ble^{the ActingChiefJustice SujoA PauI)}

¶44

Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned^{Senior Counselappearing for} Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned^{counsel for the petitioner;Sri} G.Veeraswamy, Iearned Government^{Pleader forGeneral} Administration, for respondent^{No.1 and Ms' GudipatiSharvani,} learned counsel representing^{Sri KrishnaReddyPutta,learned} counsel for respondent No.6.

¶45

With the consent fina,tlY^heard

¶46

This Petition filed under Article^{226 of the Constitution} challenges the constitutional validity^{of theTelangana} Municipalities (Amendment) Act,^{2025 (AmendmentAct)' In nut} shell, the case of the petitioner^{is that by impugned amendment} Act, certain Grampanchayats^{have been brought within the} ambit of the municipalities.^{The petitioner is aggrieved by such} inclusion which forms part^of entry^{54 C which reads thus:}

¶47

"54C Moinbad^(bY merging Moinabad, Himayathnagar, Yenka PallY, Chilkur, \ Murthuzaguda, Peddamangalaram, Surangal and Aziznagar GrampanchaYats.

¶48

2

¶49

4 . Learne,l counsel for the petitioner raised z singular contention to tssail the impugned Amendment Act t_rat before bringing ttre Grampalchayats within the r Lmbit of municipalities, t he respondents had to folloi.l,, the statu tory rules namely:- The Andhra pradesh Municipalities (Inc.usion or Exclusion cf Areas into/from the Jurisdiction of the Municipalities/l,lagar panchayats) Rules, 2015 (Ruie,s, 2015). These Rules have not been followed. In the absence ol foilowing those rules, tJ-re impugned enactment is bad in law.

¶50

On the ,; ther har-rd, learned Government pit :46161 16. Municipal Aclrn nistration supported the tmpugned arrendment and submits tlrrlt before this amendment, an ordinz.nce was brought into for.ce, wherein similar exercise of brin ging the GrampalchayiLts in municipality was the subj ect r ratter of challenge in \A/.1) No.15194 of 2024 and batch arrd the said writ petitions u,ere ciismissed by common order dated 05.12.2024. Now same orclit'r;rnce has taken shape of full_pleclged en..rctment. In viern' of said order, no interference cal be rnade in the impugned amenrlment.

¶51

I I

¶52

3

¶53

The next limb of argument^is based^{on Section 299 of the} Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019^(Act, 2019).^{It is submitted} that when the Rules are inconsistent^{with the Act itself, the Act} will prevail. This aspect has^{been dealt with.by while deciding} WP.No.25194 of 2024 and batch. It^{is furtherurged that} in view of sub-Section 3 of Section^{(3) of the Act, 2019, the} amendment of the Act is in^{consonancewith the enabling} provision.

¶54

The parties confined their arguments^{to theextent} indicated above"

¶55

B" Sub Section 3 of Section^{3 of the TelanganaMunicipalities} Act, 2019 reads thus:

¶56

(3) The State Legislature may, by^{way of amendmentto this} Act, modify or add or alter schedule^{I or II of this Act so as to,-}

¶57

(a) form a new Municipality^{by separation of local} area from any Municipality,^{or by unitingtwo or} more local areas or^{part of areas, or by uniting} any local area to a^{part of Municipality;} (b) include within a Municipality^{aly local area;} (c) exclude irom a Municipality,^anya-rea comprised therein;

¶58

(d) constitute any loca1 area^{as a Municipality;}

¶59

(e) alter the name of any Municipality;

¶60

(f) revise the boundary of municipal^area; (g) describe the boundaries of the^{Municipality;} (h) abolish a MunicipaiitY.

4

I

i j I

A plain re ading of this enabling pror.ision shou,s that the constitution ,:l municipalities is permissible ar-rcl sai,j exercise can be dorLe by way of amendment of the Act. New municipalities <:an be formed as well as new municipal areas. As noticed a bove, learned counsel for the petitiot-ret- has not doubted the [e6;islative competence in issuing the Ar.eendment Act. The eye, ll-ou,s are raised on the Amendment Ar:t only on the ground t hat Rules are not followed. We are irrclined to observe that said contention is misconceived. When tlre mother Act namely, t[e Telangana Municipalities Act, 2olg, in sub-Section !i ol section 3 permits the Legislature to amend the Act and forrr: new Municipalities, the Legislature ha s done it within four corrLers of Law. The provisions of the Ar:t as well settled, are on a higher pedestal than the provisions of Rules. In other worcls Rules are made under the Act ar-rcl rhe Rules cannot goverl'r the provisions of the Act. Section 3 (3) is an independent c r rbling provision.

¶65

This Court a1so, in the previous round of liti;.1ation 1n WP.No.25194 ot'2024 and batch, dated 05.12.2024, c,pined as under:

¶66

l)

¶67

5

¶68

" 18. Thus, from perusal of Section 299 of^tll.e 2019 Act,^{it is} evident that the Rules framed under the 1965 Act are^saved, provided the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2019 Act. The Ru1es, 2015 are inconsistent with the substantive provisions of Section 3 of the 2079^Act. Therefore, the aforesaid Rules are no longer in force. For the aJorementioned reason the contention that the Ordinance³ of 2024 is in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules 2015^is misconceived

¶69

Insofar as alother submission made on behalf of the petitioners that a Constitutrona-l Body like Gram Panchayat cannot be dissolved, suffice it to say that in exercise^of powers under Section 3 of the 2019 Act, the limits of a local body can be altered. The validity of the aforesaid Section^is not under challenge in these writ petrtions. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with the said contention.

¶70

2O. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not hnd any merit in these writ petitions. The same fail and are hereby dismissed."

¶71

(trmphasis supplied)

¶72