Telangana High Court
WP/23327/2020 of Smt. B. Pushpalatha Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2020
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A . ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 23327 OF 2 020 Smt. B. Pushpalatha, W/o B. Parusharam Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ:
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 23327 OF 2020
Between:
Smt. B. Pushpalatha, W/o B. Parusharam Reddy, Aged about 54 years,Occ: Corporator, R/o H.No.26-122142, Sharadha Nagar, Safilgudd, Hyderabad.
..,PETITIONER
AND
1.The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administrationand Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.2.Telangana State Election Commission, Rep by its Commissioner Office at 1stFloor, DTCP Building, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.The Deputy Commissioner, GHIr/C Circle No.17, Office at Malkajgiri, HyderabadFloor, DTCP Building, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad.The Deputy Commissioner, GHIr/C Circle No.17, Office at Malkajgiri, Hyderabad4.Gunti Anuradha, W/o Bheem Roy, Aged about42 years, Occ. F/o H.No.30-1303,Near Hanuman Temple, Vinayak Nagar, Hyderabad.Near Hanuman Temple, Vinayak Nagar, Hyderabad.5.Safia Momin, W/o Momin Basha, Aged about 44 years, Occ. R/o H.No.29-14421158h, Sri Sai Nagar, Near Ambedker Statue, Sainikupuri, Hyderabad500094.14421158h, Sri Sai Nagar, Near Ambedker Statue, Sainikupuri, Hyderabad500094.6C, Rajyalakshmi, W/o R. Joga rao Aged about 58 years, Occ. Rio H.No.22-7111,R.K. Nagar, Hyderabad 500047R.K. Nagar, Hyderabad 5000477Kavitha Godugu, W/o Durgesh Godugu, Aged about 34 years, Occ. R/oH.NO.29-14421 165, Sri Sai Nagar, NearAmbedkerStatue, Sainikupuri,Hyderabad 500094H.NO.29-14421 165, Sri Sai Nagar, NearAmbedkerStatue, Sainikupuri,Hyderabad 500094BPidugu Pranitha, W/o P. Sreedhar Rao, Aged about 41 years, Occ. R/o H.No.38-78, Ambedkar Nagar, Sainikupuri, Hyderabad 500094 78, Ambedkar Nagar, Sainikupuri, Hyderabad 500094
...RES'ONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Cou( may be pleased toissue an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more [particularly ]one in the nature ofWRIT OF MANDAil/US declaring the action of the official respondents in adding thevotes of Santoshimaa Nagar pertaining to the polling station No.36 and 47 located inthe ward No.138 Moula Ali, in the ward No.137 Vinayak Nagar is illegal, lrrational,arbitrary, malafide, without [jurisdiction ]and is in violation of not only Article 14 and [21]of the Constitution of lndia but also in absolute violation of [provisions ]of the GHMCAct and in violation of delimitation of wards notified vide G.O.tMs.No.166 dated1911112015 under Telangana Municipal Corporation [(Delimitation ]of wards) Rules andagainst the equity consequently direct the official respondents to declare the resultsof Ward No.'1 37 a fresh after deleting the votes of Santoshimaa Nagar of [polling]stations 36 and 47.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct theRespondent authorities not to allow the Respondent No.6 to participate policydecisions or any important decisions of the corporation, pending disposal of the WritPetition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M.A.K. MUKHEED
Counsel for the Respondent No.1:
GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P. SUDHEER RAO,SC FOR T,S. ELECTION COMMISSION
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA REDDY,SC FOR GHMCSC FOR GHMC
Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 8: NONE APPEAREDThe Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.23327 of 2O2O
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Conclusion
lle:rrd learncd counsel for the petrtioner, lcarnec.l(-iovcrnment Pli--:idcr 1i>r Mr:nicipal Adminrstrltion itnd UrbanDeveiopmcnt for rcspondcnt No.1, Sri l).St-tdhccr lRiro, le:arrrtcrlStar-rding Counsel lor Telangana State Illection Cc>mrnission, [orrcspondcr-rt No.2, and Sri Pasham Krishna Reddr', lcanreclStanding Counsel lor GHMC, for respondent No.3. With rheirconsent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage ol admissionitself.
The present writ petition is filed by the petitiorrer aggrievedby the action ol the official respondents in includirrg thc votcs ofSantoshimaa Nagar pert4rning to Polling Station Nos.36 and 47locatcd iu u ard No, l llS-Mor-ria Alj, in the [r,r'ard ]No. 1ll7-Vinaval<Nzrgar. as illcg:rl irnci zrrl>itr:tr,r.
Brief facts of thc case, in a nutshell, are that the [petitioner]herein has submitted her nomination for GI-{MC elections-2O2O [in]respect of Ward No. 137-Vinayak Nagar. After completion of [the]nomination process, the petitioner was supplied with [the ][voters']list for Ward No.I37. On verifica.t.ion of the [same, ][she ][found ][that:]the Polling Station No.36 consisting o1966 [votes ][pertaining to ][door]Nos.30-294/ 1 to 30-3641 A1365 and Polling Station [No.47]consisting of 812 votes pertaining to Door [Nos.30-152/8 ][to ][3C-]27 5 I 16 respectively, altogether [1 ][778 ][votes were ][included ][in ][Ward]No. i37 instead of Ward No.138-Moula AIi. [lmmediately, the ][same]was brought to the notice ol respondent [No.3-the ][Deputy]Commissioner with a request [to ]rectify. [On the date ][of ][polling' ][t.hc]
petitioner found that the above mistake has not been rectified byrespondent No.3. Therefore, the petitioner brought the said fact torespondent No.3. Therefore, the petitioner brought the said fact tothe notice of the Returning Officer and presiding Officersconcerned and they advised the petitioner to approach the DeputyCommissioner, Malkajgiri Circle. Immediately, the petitioner hasonce again brought the said fact to the notice of respondent No.3_the Deputy Commissioner, who replied that necessary action willbe taken in the matter after consulting the Municipalonce again brought the said fact to the notice of respondent No.3_the Deputy Commissioner, who replied that necessary action willbe taken in the matter after consulting the MunicipalCommissioner and the State Election Commission. However, nocall was taken on the issue, due to which, the counting of the votesHowever, nocall was taken on the issue, due to which, the counting of the voteswas concluded and subject votes were counted in ward No.137,subject votes were counted in ward No.137,due to which the petitioner lost the elections with a margin of 2g9votes. It is further alleged that respondent No.3-the DeputyDeputyCommissioner without following the instructions issued b1, theGovernment as well as the State Election Commission, from timeto time, has added nearly I77g votes pertaining to Ward No. 13g inward No. 137 by aclopting corruptive practices to do undue favourto particular contesting candidate. Aggrieved b,v the same. thepresent Writ petition has been filed.to time, has added nearly I77g votes pertaining to Ward No. 13g inward No. 137 by aclopting corruptive practices to do undue favourto particular contesting candidate. Aggrieved b,v the same. thepresent Writ petition has been filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended thatin spite of the specific requests made by the petitioner to theauthorities bringing to their notice the irregularities committed byincluding the votes belonging to Ward No. 13g to Ward No.137, noaction was taken by the authorities. Due to the inaction of therespondents, the petitioner has lost the elections with a margin of289 votes. Learned counsel has further statecl that the action ofthe respondent authorities in including the votes pertaining toWard No.I38 in Ward No, 137 is contrary to the provisions of thc GHMC Act, The Telangana [Municipal ][Corporation ][(Delimitation ][of]Wards) Rules and the same [was done ][with ][a malafide ][intention ][to]support respondent No.6 [in ][winning ][the ][election.]
Tl-re Iean'red Starnding [Counsel appearing ][for ][rcspondent]No.2-TSEC, r,"hile reiterating [the various provisions ][of ][GHMC ][Act,]has also expletined the [procedure ][to ][be ][follou'ed ][and the ][guidelines]issuer.l by the TSEC [to ][the ][GHMC ][authorities and has ][stated ][that]the authorities u'ith a [vie\.r' ][to ensure ][that ][no deletion ][or ][inclusion]of any house number [in ][the ][wrong Ward takes place ][have]published the schedule calling [for objections ][and ][dealing ][with ][the]objections. Without raising [any objections ][at ][the relevant ][point ][of]time, the petitioner has [filed the ][present ][writ ][petition ][that ][too ][after]the results were declared. [Learned counsel ][has also stated that]the delimitation and [reservations ][which ][were ][followed ][in ][GHMC]Elections-2O 16 have [been followed ][for ][the ][GIIMC ][Elections-202O]also. Learned Standing [Counsel has stated ][that ][once ][the ][elections]are concluded and the [results are ][also announced, ][the ][remedy]available to the [petiLioner ][is lo ][file an ][Election Petition ][and ][this]Court cannot interfere [under Article 226 ][of ][the ][Conslitulion ][of]Ind ia.
Thc }earned Stancling [counsel tor ][GHMC ][has ][also argued ][on]similar ltnes and has [stated ][that ][the ][dclimitation ][of ][the Wards ][has]taken place in the [year ][20 ][15 ][itself giving the ][specific ][details of ][the]boundaries of each [and ][every ][Ward ][with ][house ][numbers, the ][same]was published in [Gazette ][vide ][Gazette ][Notification' ][dated]2O.11.2015, and the [same ][has ][been ][scrupulously ][followed ][by ][the]authoritiesintheGHMCElections-2O2Otoo.Whenthepetitioner
Statutes
\\'as not having an1, grievance r,"'ith regard to inclusion of lhesubject votes in Ward No.137 during the GHMC Elections-2O16lvherein she has contested and succeeded, the same cannot bequestioned by the petitioner in the GHMC Elections-202O. Merelybecause the petitioner has lost the elections, she cannot be allowedto say that nearly 1778 votes belonging to Ward No. 138 werewrongly included in Ward No.137. Learned counsel has furtherargued that even though the petitioner has taken a plea thatimmediately after receiving the voters'list, she has brought the factof wrong inclusion ol 1778 votes in Ward No.137 to the notice ofrespondent No.3, she has not filed any proof to substantiate herclaim and the petitioner is put to strict proof thereof. Thepetitioner had ample time to file appropriate petition seekingamendments or corrections before the concerned authorities orapproach any Court of law, but for the reasons best knor.l,n to hershe kept quiet and approached this Court after the results areannounced. Even otherwise also, the official respondents havetaken into consideration the variorrs objections andrepresentations made by various political parties, voters, and otherindividuals and rectified the same as and when the same werebrought to their notice. Learned Standing Counsel has taken thisCourt through two Government Orders issued by the Governmenti.e. (1) G.O.Ms.No.561, Municipal Administration & UrbanDeuelopment (GHMC.ll) Department, dated 31 . 10.2020, uhere theGouernment has ordered to proceed uith the existing detimitatiort ofWards as utas ftnalised duing GHMC Dlections 2016, in ensuirtgGHMC elections, and (2) G.O.RLNo.562, Munictpal Administrationand [Jrban Deuelopment (G(-(MC.II) Department, dated 3 1 . 10.2020, where the Gouentment hos ord_ered to treat the Reseruation ofWards made to SIs, SCs, BCs & Women issued_ in G.O.Ms.No.2S,MA & UD, dated 08.01.2016, duing the GHMC elections cond"ucted"tn 20 16 asfrst term ond to follotu the same reseruation of Wards toSIs, SCs, BCs & Women for the ensuing Elections to GHMC assecond term Hctird all tlte counscis:rnd perused the matcrial on rccord.
Thc prcscnt ri,rit petition is Iiled on tltc solc. grour.rcl t.hat1778 votcs be longing to Ward No. 138-Moula Ali werer.l'ro ngllincluded in Ward No. 137-Vinayak Nagar.
Relevant provisions or definitions are hereby extracted forbetter understanding/ adjudication of the mattersThe Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations(Delimitation of Wards) Rules, 1996The Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations(Delimitation of Wards) Rules, 1996
2. Definitions:-
(v) Ward' means the Territorial Constituency forthe conduct of Elections lor the offices of membersto the Corporation.
3, The Corporation shall be divided into as manyWards as notified b1, Lhc goverrlmcr)t Llndcr sub-section (l ) of Section 8 of the Hyderabad MunicipalCorporations Act, 1955.
4. The area ol the Corporation shall be divided intoWards as notified bY thc (]ovc-rn mcn t un(1cr Ru lc3.clu11, fakir-rg into account the natural-boundaries(ieoqraphical leatures and contiguity of the area.Wherever natural boundaries could not bc adoptedsur\:e), numbers,T.S. numbers, importantj unctions or lanesshall be considered as far aspossible.
5. The variations in population in lhe Wards shallnot be more than 10% of the average [population ]ofthe Wards as far as possible.
6. Ward division shall commence from the North-East point of the Geoeraphical boundary of theCorporation and the Wards shall be numbered inseriatum in clock-wise direction starting from theNorth-East point.
7. Boundary description of each Ward shall beprcpared starting from the North-East point inclock-u'isc direction.
The Telangana Municipal Corporation (Preparation andPublication of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 2OO1(G.O.Ms.No.515 MA&UD Elecs.I) MA, dated 15.1O.2OO1)
3. Preparation of Electoral Rolls:-,]'hc lllct:toralRoll lirr tlrc Corporirtir>n sltirll llc sttt'l.t l)::rrt or l)artso1' thr: current clcctoral roll ol thr' ['I'clanganzr]I-cgislativc Assembll' ConstiLuerrcics, prepzrred anclpublisl-red undcr the llepresentation ol thc Pcr>p1cAct, 1950, as relates to the Corporation, u,hichshall be prepared by such person authorizecl bythe State Election Commissioner, or such date asmay be specified by the Election Commission, andany amendments issued to the said electoral roll ofthe Assembll' Constituencies, thereafter, as the),relate to the Corporation, upto the date ol electionnotification, shall be carncd out thercin.
As pcr Rr-rle 6 of tl-re 2001 Rr-rle s. in c:rsc ol anr clcrical orprinting error or iroth, or rvhen the cntries deviate lroln theparticnlars ol thc Asscmblr. r:lcctoral Roll, rhc pcrson authorisccl i;r,lhc Stale Iilection Commissioncr mav c:lLlsc such r.rrors rcctiliccl.so as to bring it in conlorr.nitl n'itit tltr: p:rrticrrlars of Asscmlrlvelectoral roll concerned. Ilou,cver, the person authorised bv the State Election Commissione r shall not resort to suo motu revisionof the rolls by way of deletions or additions or modifications.of the rolls by way of deletions or additions or modifications.
As per Form - I Notice of publication of Electoral Roll, allorders or inclusion, deletion or corrections issued on the basis oforders or inclusion, deletion or corrections issued on the basis ofthese claims and objections by the said Electoral RegistrationOlficer till the date of the election notification will be dulvincorporated in the electoral roll of the Corporation.
As seen from the material on record, the delimitation of thcWards has taken place in the year 2015 itself. G.O.RI.No.S61 .datcd 31 .1O.2O2O, clearll, denotes thar the Wards whrch weredelirrircd in the year 20 15 basir-rg on which the GHMC Elections-2016 u,ere held, have to be follou,ed for the GHMC Elections-202O.l'he Gazette Notification issued by the Government in the year2015 delimiting the Wards with their geographical limits showsthat the boundaries are clearly mentioned and the house numbershave also been given in consonance with the provisions of theGHMC Act. A bare perusal of the Gazette Notification and thespecific boundaries which are shown for a particular Ward showthat each and every Ward is clearly defined /demarcated withspecific boundaries specifying the starting house number and theending hourse number. The bounclaries of the subject Wardnuntbers, as shor.l,n in rhe Gazette Notification dated 20.11.2015,are hereby extracted lbr better understanding ol- the lls in theprescnt writ petition.
Boundary description of Ward No.l37, Vinayak Nagar:
EastStats from Vinobha Nagar t3us Stop runs towardsNagalaxmi Function llall via Ambedkar Nagar, IIMWS & SB
Boundary description for Ward No.13g - Moula Ali:
Even il the allegations made b1,.the petitioner are raken to bctrue, she has not filed any objections before thc authorities rorrectilication before the final list \r/as published. The challcnge totrue, she has not filed any objections before thc authorities rorrectilication before the final list \r/as published. The challcnge toelection either aftcr the election notification is issued or artcr theresurlts arc announccd, are u.e ll settled and the j r-rri sclic tior-r of Lheresurlts arc announccd, are u.e ll settled and the j r-rri sclic tior-r of LheHigh Court under Article 226 of tine Constitution of India is verylimited and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file anlimited and the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file anElection Petition before the Tribunal constituted for that purpose.
Thc Flon'ble SLlpreme Cour! in Jaspal Singh [Arora]us State of M.P, and othersi [has ][l-icld ][as ][under:]
"...1n [vier,r, ]of the [mode ][of ][challenging ][the ][election ][by ][an]election petition [being prescribed ][by ][the ][M.P. ][Municipalities]Act, it is clear that the [election ][could ][not ][be ][called ][in]question except by an election [petition ][as ][provided under]that Act. The bar to interference [by ][courts ][in ][electoral]matters contained in Article [243-ZQ ][ol ][the Constitution ][was]apparently overlooked [by the ][High ][Court ][in ][allowing the ][writ]petition. Apart from the bar under [Arllcle 243-ZG, ][on ][settled]principles interference under [Article 226 ][ol ][lhe ][Constitution]for the purpose of setting [aside the election ][to a municipality]was not called lor [because ][of ][the ][statutory ][provision ][for]election petition and [also the ][fact ][that ][an earlier ][\\'rit ][petition]for the same [purpose ][b1' ][a ][defeated ][candidate ][had ][been]dismissecl bY the tligh [Court."]
ln vieu,of the above mentioned [facts and ][circumstances, this]Court does not find [any ][meri! ][in ][the ][writ ][petition and the ][same ][is]accordingly ciismissed. [lf ][the petitioner ][is ][so ][advised, she ][is ][always]at liberr). to liie an [Election Petition ][before ][the ][Election 'l'ribunal]raising all the [grounds raised ][in ][this ][writ ][petrtion ][and ][this ][order]does not come in [her ][waY ][in ][doing ][so.]
The miscellaneous [petitions ][pending, ][if ][any, shall ][stand]
closed. There shall be [no order ][as ][to ][costs.]
' 1tsoa1 [o ][scc ][594]
SD/- I.NAGALAKMIASSISTANT [REG]RAR
,TRUE COPY'
SECTION [OFFICER]
To1One CC to Sri [lr,4.A ][K ][Mukheed, ][Advocate ][tOPUCl.]Two ccs [to ][GP ][for ][Nnunicip;i;il;;;;;'t"k"" ][;!d ][li'ban ][Development' Hish ][coud]i";ih; Si;C [of ][r"lrngun, ]Hvderabad loUTl"t one cc to sri [P ][sudheer ][R;;:6Ei;;i ][S ][Et"ttion.co"ission ][[oPUC]]4.5l[ EE i; [E;i ]['p.;h;;-x'isn].1 ][nJoov ][sc ][FoR ][GHMC ][[oPUC]]5.Two CD CoPiesCHRt\r)a HIGH COURT
DATED:3011212020
ORDER
W.P.No.23327 of 2020
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS
v
cf6'',1HE14oor0 5 JAit 2021*|<bi..Tr-..\ttp