Telangana High Court
P. Venkat Raoa, Secunderabad Another vs Union Of India, New Delhi Another on 15 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE: B.PRAKASH RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE: C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No. 26173 of 2007
Between:
1. P.Venkat Rao, S/o. Late P.Swamy
2. P.Madhukar, S/o. Late P.Narayana.
..... Petitioners
AND
1. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi, India.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment, Secunderabad.
Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit
filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or writs order or direction more so in the nature of writ of
Mandamus declaring the Section 13(1)(b) of the Act 41 of 2006 (Cantonment Act 2006) as unconstitutional being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is arbitrary so also on account of excessive delegation of power resulting in
effacement of legislative function/power consequently to order status-quo ante as prevalent prior to notification of even dt.
18-12-2006 issued by the 1st respondent, which are themselves, illegal, being in derogation of constitutionally recognized
basic structure mandates of democracy and rule of law, as well as being without authority of law, arbitrary, whimsical,
unreasonable, without reason, in breach of even elementary fairness, thereby clearly violative of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India as such even it is liable to be set aside.
The Petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed herein and the order of the High
Court dated. 07-12-2007 made in WPMP.NO. 34137/2007 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor,
Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General for the Respondent No.1 and of Sri Deepak
Bhattacharjee, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2.
The Court made the following ORDER:
" Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned
counsel and Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondents.
When the writ petition is taken up having regard to the urgency expressed by the petitioner's counsel that
Elections are likely to be conducted in May 2008 and the notification has been issued with regard to Elections, after
hearing the counsel for some time, we are informed that similar such questions are involved in another two matters
in WA.No. 1033 of 2007 and WP.No. 11730 of 2007. Therefore, it is felt desirable that all the matters connected with
the same question should be disposed of together.
Office is directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and obtain necessary orders in
regard to posting of all the matters together.
..2..
Since learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Elections are likely to be conducted, he insisted for stay.
However, having heard the counsel, we are of the view that the question of granting stay of Elections does not arise
and it is needless to mention that any Elections conducted shall be subject to the result of the Writ Petition."
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, India.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment, Secunderabad.
3. The Section Officer, Writ Filing Section, High Court of A.P.Hyd(OUT)
4. Two CCs to Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, Asst. Solicitor General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
5. One CC to Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, Advocate(OPUC)
6. Two spare copies.
SAH
HIGH COURT
BPRJ & CYSJ
DATED: 19-04-2008
ORDER
WP.NO. 26173 OF 2007 DIRECTION DRAFTED BY: SAH APPROVED BY:
DRAFTED ON: 21-04-2008 HIGH COURT BPRJ & CYSJ DATED: 19-04-2008 ORDER WP.NO. 26173 OF 2007 DIRECTION