Writ petition challenging declaration of a Sarpanch by draw of lots after an alleged missing ballot paper caused a tie in gram panchayat elections. The court held the allegations were factual and that under Article 243-O such disputes lie only before the Election Tribunal, and dismissed the petition with liberty.
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.
:. r.-.!:: -:l:j<i t:[,' .r-, i i
.[321e1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TVVENW FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.TI/IEOXEU DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO: 39009 OF 2025
Between:
Palugula Uma Rani, wlo. Naveen Kumar,.nggg gbgyt_ao years, occ ; Housewife, R/o' Vasa|amarry ViIIage, Thurkapalty tvtin'oaiiVioio-ri-anurianagirib]Itiict.
.....PETITIONER
AND
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under Article 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 a writ, order or direction, mofe particularty one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in declaring the 7th respondent as Sarpanch, Vasalamarry Gram panchayath, Thurkapaly Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District by intentionally misplacing a validly polled vote, thereby causing tie in the polling and resorting to a draw of tots and the
. tri
l,l
further inaction in conducting a recount byincludingthe traced misplaced"voteor taking steps for re-polling of Ward No.2 ofVasalamarry Gram Panchayat, pursuant to petitioner's representations dated 15-12- 2025, asbeing illegat, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and243-0 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the election of RespondentNo.7 as Sarpanchof Vasalamarry Gram Panchayat with a further directionto the official respondents to recount the votes of Ward No.2 by includingthe traced valid ballot bearingNo. A-038321 or in the alternative, direct the officialrespondents to conduct re-polling for Ward No.2 of Vasalamarry GP and declarethe result of the Sarpanch, Vasalamarry Gram Panchayat accordingly.
|.A.NO:1 OF 2025
Petition Under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Courtmay be pleasedto direct the respondents not toproceed further with theswearing-in ofthe 7th respondent as Sarpanch of Vasalamarry Gram Panchayat,ThurkapallyMandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, scheduled on20-1 2-2025.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.GIRIDHAR,ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.l :GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Resporident Nos.2 &4 to 6 : SRI P.SUDHEER RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : G.PFOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.7 :--
The Court made the following ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI N OF DATE: t8.12.2O25
Between:
Palugula Uma Rani
.Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana & 6 others
.Respondents
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenglng the action of the respondents No.2 to 6 in declaring the 7tr, respondent as sarpanch, vasalmarry Gram panchayat, Thurkapally Mandar, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, though there was a balrot paper missing while counting the votes for the post of sarpanch, as illegal and arbitrary.
-: I I --.€','' { .',: ,,,---{-..: i , : '
2
the next day by the petitioner and others that a ballot paper was found at the widow of the counting halr, the same was not taken into consideration and no action has been taken thereon.
3' Learned counser for the petitioner reried on Rule 56 Telangana Panchayat Raj (conduct of Election) Rules, 1961 to submit that where there is any issue regarding balrot paper, i.e, either of missing or damage, the Returning officer has to report the sarne to the state Election commission, who shail take decision thereon under section 23L of the panchayat Raj Act, 2018. He submitted that in this case, the Returning officer has not followed the procedure and has not reported about the missing ballot paper to the state Erection commission and has taken a decision himserf and declared 7th respondent as sarpanch and thus acted contrary to the Rures. Therefore, he prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to re-count the votes or to conduct elections afresh.
4' Learned senior counser appearing for state Election commission submitted that counting was done in accordance with the proced.ure and there was no discrepancy in the votes polled and counted. He further submitted that two contesting candidates got equal number of votes (609 each) and one of the
.. ti
3
I : It a I
contesting candidates demanded for recounting and as per the demand, alt the Sarpanch votes were recounted and the result was the same. Therefore, as per the guidelines, if two candidates contesting any seat happen to secure the highest number of votes and their votes are equal in number, the result will have to be decided by lot and accordingly, the lot was drawn and. the winner was declared. He further submitted that petitioner can only challenge the same before the Election Tribunal and there is no case for interference at this stage by his Court.
\
n243O. Bur to interference by courts in electoral matters
No tw it hs tandtng anyt hing i n t h is C o ns t i tu t i o n-
(g) the validity of any law relating to the deltmitation of constttuencies or the allotment, of seals to such conslituencies made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in questton in any court;
ft)no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is providedfor by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State."
4
r1
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
sD/-M. ANT //TRUE COPY/
.rr.i- .l,i,i4'- '. ,,;,ri+lli;
., ,tits r ;li,,'
O4
HIGH COURT
DATED i1811212025
ORDER
ll.lh- SX4
C] ,.
o 23 otc Zm r
*
"<J
J,
-53r ti-:n
WP.No.39009 of 2025
DISMISSING THE W.P
WITHOUT GOSTS
4 dpL
%n
'y3',
:.i
4atllL;, . i*#+
1\ , '.:.:.i.:.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition lies to challenge the declaration of the 7th respondent as Sarpanch after an alleged missing ballot paper caused a tie resolved by lot, given Article 243-O's bar on court inter
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Palugula Uma Rani
The State of Telangana
The Telangana State Election Commission
The District Election Officer and District Collector, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District
The Returning Officer/Stage-II Officer, Maryala
Smt. Anuradha Dommata
T. Madhavi Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
