Pasula Raghupathi vs The State Of Telangana, And 4 Others on 7 January, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Pasula Raghupathi vs The State Of Telangana, And 4 Others on 7 January, 2020

Bench: P.Naveen Rao

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

                  WRIT PETITION NO.463 OF 2020

                        Date: 07.01.2020

Between:

Pasula Raghupathi s/o. late Pasula Anthaiah,
Aged about 35 years, occu: Business,
r/o. 7-70, Pedda Amberpet, Hyathnagar,
Ranga Reddy District.

                                                  .....Petitioner
            and

The State of Telangana, rep.by its
Prl. Secretary (MAUD), Secretariat Buildings,
Hyderabad and others.
                                                .....Respondents




The Court made the following:
            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

                 WRIT PETITION NO.463 OF 2020
ORDER:

Petitioner is challenging the pre-election process undertaken by the respondents in Pedda Amberpet Municipality. The main contention urged is that the Municipality has not followed arrangement of wards clockwise and voters strength in respective wards exceeding 10% maximum limit and that the social status of the voters is not correctly done and there are several mistakes.

2. With reference to the allegation of clockwise arrangement of wards, it is seen from the map filed by the petitioner at page no.19, there is no such mistake in the arrangement and having regard to the geographical alignment of wards in the Municipality, it cannot be said that exercise is not made as per the parameters of Rule 4 of the Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.78 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (MA) Department, dated 29.06.2019.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the voters list published on 04.01.2020 to contend that variation in the voters list is exceeding and in the same writ petition paper book, petitioner also filed apportionment of voters list at page no.25 (Annexure P6). From the said statement, it is seen that variation is not exceeding 10%. As clarified by the learned standing counsel, on account of subsequent revision of the voters list and the voters have to be allotted accordingly in the said manner, there may be allotment of voters exceedingly permissible limit, but the exercise as required by Rule 5 of the Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 29.06.2019 is already undertaken and, therefore, the same is not illegal. I find merit in the said contention.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 31.12.2019 detailed representation was made pointing out wrong reflection of the social status of the voters. Learned standing counsel does not have instructions as the writ petition is moved in lunch motion. However, it is needless to observe that the representation made by the residents of Pedda Amberpet Municipality Congress Committee be verified and if there are mistakes in identification of social status of voters, the same shall be notified immediately. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall sand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 07.01.2020 kkm HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.463 OF 2020 Date: 07.01.2020 kkm

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Telangana High Court