Dismissed

Smt. Kommu Yadamma v. The State Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2025WP/39198/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged irregularities in counting equal votes in a Sarpanch election where respondent No.6 was declared elected without following the tie procedure. The court held Article 243-O bars interference, allegations were factual and videography could verify them, and advised approaching the Election Tribunal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Kommu Yadamma Vs The State Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^321e 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Originirl Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 39198 OF 2025

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt. Kommu Yadamma, W/o Bhiksham,^Age. 43,^{Occ: Housewife,Village,} Tungapati Gouraram, Mandal Nampally, District.^{Nalgonda, Telangana Sate}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, PanchayatRaj and} Rural Developmeht Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Telangana State Etection^{Commission,Rep. by itsElection} Commissioner, Hyderabad.

¶13

J The District Collector^{-Cum-Election Commission,Nalgonda' Nalgonda} District.

¶14

4 The District Panchayath Officer, Cum^{Assistant Election Presiding Officer.} The Returning Officer, Village:^{Tungapati Gouraram, Mandal:Nampally,} District: Nalgonda, Telangana Sate.

¶15

6 Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o Mummadi^{KrishnaReddy' Aged30 years, (Declared} as Sarpanch) Village: Tungapati^{Gouraram,Mandal: Nampally,District:} Nalgonda, Telangana Sate.

¶16

7 Mummadi Krishna Reddy,^{Aged 30 years, Occ.Politician Age.Tungapati} Gouraram, Mandal:^{Nalgonda, District: Nalgonda, Telangana Sate}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{particularlyone in the} nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaring in actionof the is particularly respondent} No. 2 to 5 in re-counting^{of votes on_ representation of the petitionersdated} 12112t2025, 13112t2O25 and^{1711212025,with regard to Sarpanchelection of} Village: Tungapati Gouraram,^{Mandal: Nampally, District:Nalgonda,Telangana}

¶19

Sate as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional and infringemen fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of lndia and conseque rtially to direct the Respondents to preserve, seal, and secure all ballot pape s, counting sheets, returns, and connected election records pertaining to 1l: election held on 1111212025, and direct an independent recount of votes un j rr the supervision of this Hon'ble Court, through an Advocate Commissioner or in^,;amera.

¶20

lA NO:^'l OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci-r umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to grant an interim stay of operation of the election result date( 1l12l2O2S including swearing ceremony of Respondent no. 6. and by immec ate preserving and sealing all ballot papers and entire record of elections in -. I far as Thungapati Gouraram Gramapanchayth Election, Nampally Mandal. lalgonda District is concerned, pending disposal of the main Writ petition pel ling disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. RAMESH, SENTOR COUt'J ;EL FOR SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULli. rRNl

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT fl. rJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMi \IT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5: SRI P. SUDHEEII RAO, S.C. FOR TS ELECTION C() l,IMISSION

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: -

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.39I98 OF 2025

DATED | 19.12.2025

Betu, cen

Smt. Kornmu Yadamma

... Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Deparlment, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 6 others

¶37

... Respondents

¶38

ORDER

¶39

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the inaction^on the paft of the respondents particularly respondents 2 to 5 in recounting the votes on the representations of the^petitionet dt.12.12.20205^and 17.12.2025 with regard to the Sarpanch election in the Village of

¶40

Thungapati Gouraram, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, as^illegal

¶41

and arbitrarv.

¶42

\ \

¶43

W.P. No.i9198 o12025 2

¶44

Learncd Senior Counsel appearing for the p r .itioner submitted that on the day of the election, i.e., on I l.l2.2O25,,vcr.s were polled and at the tintc ol' countir-rg. it rvas fbund that the pet tioner as well as respondent No.6 sccured equal nu.rber of votes and ir ;tead of tbllowing the procedure rcquired under Section 6l of the Telirn r .na lranchayat Raj (Conduct of E.lcctions) Rules, 20 lg, i.e., to draw e ot. the Retur.ning Officer has called the husbancl o['rcspondent No.6, r.: . respondent No.7 he'ein to the crountirg Ha[ and talked with lrirn anc arso called some other perso. and thereafter returncd to the Ha[ ancr i.i r taken arr invalid vote and cour.rtcd it in I'avour ol respondent fL.6 and declared respondent No.6 as the successful candidate. [t is srrl mitted that when the petitioner and her agent have objected to the sarnc. they. were necked out of the Ilall and therefore, therc was vioration of lrr sic human rights. He submitted that tlie same was immediately brought t r the notioe of the authorities, brrt no action has been taken and on 12. 2.2025 a written cornplaint has also treen given. Therefore, accorclir g to the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is :lear. violation of principles of natural justice, the Election code and :l e Election Rules and also the ltrovisions of the Telangana panchaya: Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 't 2018. He further relied upon the 1c lowing Supreme

Bffiry

W.P. No.39198 o12025

Courl^judgments in support of his contention that even though there is alternative remedy of an election dispute, this Court under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India can entertain a Writ Petition

¶49

( l) Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Mark,

¶50

Nlumbai and othe rsr

¶51

(2)Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.

¶52

and others2

¶53

(3)Tijendranath Mahato Vs. West Bengal State Election

¶54

Commission and othersl

¶55

(4)Neha Chandraka.nt Shroff & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra &

¶56

ors.a

¶57

Learned Senior Counsel appearing lor the State Election

¶58

Commission is also heard. [{e submitted that though the election was held on 11.12.2025, the petitioner has submitted the representation only

¶59

on 13.12.2025 and therefore it could not have been considered.

¶60

'^{( 1998) 8} scc^r

¶61

l{zfot)^{z scc tor}

¶62

'2043 SCC Online Cal 1569

¶63

'202!^{LauSui(SC) 508: 2025INSC 484: 20:5 (5)SCR ol6}

¶64

W.P. No.39198 of2025 4

¶65

On a query lrom this Bench, it was also inforr Led that tl.re entire process of election is videographed and the allegatior ; of the petitioner can be velified thelelrom

¶66

Upon hearing botli parlies, this Courl finds ri-: . thcre is specific bar under Ar.ticle 243-O of the Constitution of India t r the Courls from interfering in Panchayat electoral matters. The judgm: Lts of the Hon'ble Suprcme Court cited sLrpra (l to 4) are in respect c,l he circuntstances where there is violation of principles of natur.al justir:, and where there is no altemative or efficacious remedy. In this case, t rcre is not only a bar in enterlaiuing the Writ Petitions in panchal,at elr,r tol'aI matters, but the allegations made by the petitioner are a11 f .ctual and need velification. As submitted the learned Senior Coun el for the State Election Commissior-r, tl-re entire process ol ele :tion has been videographed and therefore, the allegations of the I etitioner can be verified in an appr.opriate lorurn.

¶67

Therefore, the petitioner is advised to approar:l the appropriate forum, i.e., Election Tribunal with appropriate appl :ation. Granting libefty-tq the petitioner to approach the appropriate lorum, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶68

W.P. No.39196 of 2025

¶69

¶70

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

¶71

also stand dismissed

¶72

SD/.P.C^SULEKHA ASSIS^{TANT RE} R

//TRUE^COPY//

ECTION^OFFICER

One^{CCto SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARNI'Advoca} loPUCl

¶77

Two^{CCs to GP for Panchayat Rajand Rural Develop ment, High Court for the} State^{of Teianganaat HYderabadtouTl}

¶78

One^{CCto SRI P SUDHEERRAO, S.C. for TS Election Commission [OPUCI} 4 Two^{CCs to GP for} rl^{Revenue'High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OU

¶79

5 Two CD^CoPies

¶80