Kadathala Aravind Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2025)

Kadathala Aravind Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Election Law | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable at all, given the petitioner's inability to show that he is a 'person aggrieved' and that the petition is not a public interest litigation. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner is unable to show that he is a 'person aggrieved'; therefore this regular writ petition is not maintainable, it is not a public interest litigation, and in absence of such showing the petition is not tenable.

Ratio / Principle

On a specific query from the Bench whether any remedy of preferring a representation exists under the law and whether the authority concerned is in turn obliged to decide it, no answer was forthcoming from the petitioner's side.

Key takeaways

It is trite that a Writ of Mandamus can be issued only where it is established that there exists an enabling provision for preferring an application/appeal/representation and the corresponding duty on the authorities concerned to decide it (see Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao; Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind v. Union of India; Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa; Indore Development Authority & Anr. v. Sansar Publication Pvt. Ltd.); in absence of showing any such enabling provision, no mandamus can be issued.ratio¶36
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed without costs, and pending interlocutory applications also stand closed.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (bench: Sujoy Paul, Acting Chief Justice, author, and Renuka Yara, J.), Writ Petition No.7993 of 2025, decided 18/03/2025. A petitioner described as a law student, under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought (i) mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (including the Chief Electoral Officer) to decide his representation dated 01/03/2025 and take action against Respondent No. 4 under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (the prayer text cites S.123(3A)) for alleged breach of the Model Code of Conduct and RP Act provisions, and (ii) restraint on Respondent No. 4 from public meetings, rallies or campaigns pending inquiry. Heard on admission, the court held: (1) the petition is not maintainable - the petitioner could not show he is a 'person aggrieved' and it is not a public interest litigation; (2) on a specific Bench query, no answer was forthcoming as to any existing legal remedy obliging the authority to decide representations; and (3) a Writ of Mandamus can issue only where an enabling provision for preferring an application/appeal/representation exists together with a corresponding duty on the authorities to decide it (relying on Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao; Bhartiya Kishan Sangh District Bhind v. Union of India; Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa M. Khalifa; Indore Development Authority & Anr. v. Sansar Publication Pvt. Ltd.). The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without costs and pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

t³⁴⁴⁶¹

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPeciii briginal^{Jurisdiction)}

TUESDAY,^{THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH} '"-"dvii rnou5nuo AND rwENrY FlvE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE^{THEACTING_CHIEFJUSTiCE SUJOYPAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SII,ii JUSTICE RENUKAYARA}

WRIT PETITIO^{N NOI7993 0F2025}

Between:

3'rt%i3"1'-il?1[fl;ff^:":'31s1'l1i 5i,11lt'"#'Iil'-::',,ryr.:/3.Yfl^3o*"f Telangana

...PETITIONER

AND

1 . The^{Stateof Telangana,reO'bV} irrLclO;l^{Chief SecretaryGeneral} Administration^{Department' HyderaDao'}

'ffi^{,",1["j5]%1li'fi 13fl s:ft lif sfl :?hl,il,ffi i$lils:T'"llilJ:J3:X".")} 500063.

The Chief^{Electoral Officer' Nirvachan Sadan' Ashoka Road' New Delhi -} 110001^.

4 +:i,liHlyfl)TEilR3iBt'i&f^{,:):il",,',"x,f[[13:,',1?,Ef, fl'1'0lii*o'o8'""} Peez-adiguda'^HYderabad'

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under^{Article 226 oI the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in tne ,rrio,,itrir"d therewith,the High Courtmay} !9^olea.sed to G;; an^{appropriate writ, order, or direction'} -more particularly,one in^the.nature of writ of Mandamus,^{oir""i'to tn" ,"spondents2 and 3 to considerthe petitioner's} I"pr"""ntrilon^{dated 01/03/202Sand iate appropriate legal action againstupon^the} n-,lrp""J*t no⁴ ,under^{s""tion i is or tr'" iiepiesentation of the People Act, 1951} 123(3A) or tre-ief^{resentation of the peopleAct,1951.for promoting} "nJ's""i.n "..itv^{o.i"rt" irounds. Restrain the Respondent No. 4 from the said participating} in any^{puOfic ireetings, rallies, or campaigns pending the inquiry into his} misconduct.

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

Petition under Section,lIl CpC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit fired in suooort of the petition, ti"-nigi'corrt may be l. reased to direct the respondents 2 and e i"- J"..li"i ''ii" "'r",),,".ers representation dated 01lo3l202s to take immedirt" ,"ti""-ril,r.i"nJ.Ipo"o"nt No 4 {or vioratino the Model code of conduct "no ureacn-ing1'h; il);;;: of the Representation o-f the i^?,ili_i.ji,ll51, parricurarry ,il;;s;"i;# i;.i5^) and 12s,pen,rins disposar of

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. pALLy VINOD KUMAR_REDDY

Counset for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR GENERAL ADMINIST'.ATION

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2&3: SRI KOPAL SHARRAF

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: __

The Court made the following: ORDER

I !

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

IIIRIT PETITIoN No.7993 of 2o.25

ORDER (Per the Hon,ble the Acting Chief Justice SujaA paut):

Sri Pally Vinod Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri G. Veeraswamy, learned Government pleader for General Administration Department, for respondent No.1 and Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Heard on admission.

3' The petitioner claiming himserf to be a law student fired this petition seeking direction for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide his representation dated Ol.O3.2O2S (Annexure_pi). The petitioner is unable to show that he is a ,person aggrieved,. Thus, this reg,rar writ petition is not maintainable. In other words, this petition is not a public Interest Litigation. In absence of showing that the petitioner is ,person aggrieved,, the petition is not tenabie. Apart from this, on a specilic query from the Bench whether there exists aly remedy of preferring representation under the law and in turn, the authority concerned is obliged to decide it or not, no arrswer is forthcoming.

\ i

t

7

This is :rite that the Writ of Mandamus^{can :)e issued} provided, it is r:s;t.ablished that there^{exists an enablingprovision} for preferring an application/^{appeal/ representatron and the} correspondrng dtrty on the authorities^{concernedto decide it (see}

Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R.^{Apparaol. Bhartiya} Kishan Sangh District Bhind v. Union of India2,^Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Rafiqunnisa^{M.Khalifa3 arld} Indore Development Authority & Anr. V. Sansar^Publication

Rrt. Ltd.4). In zLbsence of showing any such enabling llrovision, no mandamus^(:rn be issued.

Accordirrgly, this Writ Appeal fails and is^hereby

dismissed. No:osts.

Intelloc utory applications, if aly pending, r;ha11 also

I

stand closed

To,

l. One CC to^{SiFll. PALLYV|NOD KUMAR REDDY TMP Advocate[OPUC]}

One CC to SRI^{KOPAL SHARRAF Advocate} IOPUCI

Two CCs to GP^{FORGENERAL ADMINISTRATION,Highcourt for the state} of Telangana. [OUT]

Two CD CoPie,s; KKS LS

'1zooz1+^{scc s:a}

'1zooz1a^{laeu saa} 1rz1 ' lzors;^{s scc rts} o tLR 2019 MP 742 (DB)

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810312025

ORDER

WP.No.7993 of 2025

I o 0I APB l[25 ?L i
* Op trr^T ^,.., iQ t
-.=-:--

DISMISSING THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

\ qv(