WP/32590/2026 of RTC Telangana Mazdoor Union, Vs The State of Telangana, on 29 September 2026

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by- its Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Commissioner of Labour, State of Telangana, T.Anjaiah, Shramik Samkshema Bhavan, Back side of Devi 70 MM Theater, RTC X Road, Hyderabad - S00 020.

3. The Joint commissioner.of the.Labour, (Twin cities), -cum- Returning officer- 3ii:_ ld_dili"jal Registrar Under Trade Union Act, Anjaiah "Snrrmr, ramKshema Ehavan, RTC 'X, Road, Hyderabad.

4. Telangana State Road Tra.nggof Corporation., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

- - ' '-r

5. RTCWorkers Union, Regd. No..A-4522, Rep. by its E. Ashwathama Reddv. sio. E.Janardhan Reddyl occ- Not K;;r;, -Ry;: ;il Ni;: ffi,tiuft,i]#j, Nagarjuna Colony, Champapet, Hyderabal.' '-- ' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particurarry one in the nature of wRrr oF 6 :Jl s^11ittra Gopaldas, Returning officer and Joint Labour commissioner [H'*t{:? tif;3ffilf t*' it' 5a m tst'""'' ; ;;;.,, D",i io M M il;;i;;:

ET7 MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned Procs. No. B.194612026 dt- 26.09.2026 allotting the symbol of LADDER to the petitioners union in the place of its original symbol "Bow Arrow" and consequently allotting the said syrnbol to the 5th respondent as illegal, capricious, arbitrary, discrimination and in violation of Art. 14 and 19 (1 ) (C) of the Constitution of lndia and direct the respondents No. 2nd, 3rd and 6th to allow the symbol "Bow Arrow'' to the petitioner union in the place of Ladder in the ensuing union elections going to be held on 09.10.2026. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent's 3rd, 6th & 2nd to allot the symbol "Eow Arrow" in the place of 'LADDER'to the petitioner union in order to contest the ensuing election going to be held on 09.10.2026 by suspending the impugned lrrocs. No. 8,194612026 dt' 26.06.2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V'NARASIMHA GOUD counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 " '' :illiitl,: l[tJ,|I REDDY' AGP' ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent No'4: SRI A KEDARNATH' REP' iHi n.nr'runac, sc FoR TGSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No'5: SRI NARESH KUMAR NEEMKAR The Court made the following: ORDER

- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD EVI w DI THEH Between: RTC Telangana tVlazdoor Union ,BLE SMT. JUSTICE JU A ON ETITroNNo.32590 of2026 wRlTP c.N.R.No.HB HC010669072026 DATED 29TH SEPTEMBER 2026 AND :o R D E R: SRID ResPondents l::'JiT$l il1i3i33;"", Labour and EmPloYment' 's";ir;;i HYderabad and others This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: " ,o l.ssue an appropriale wril or direclrc.n.P"l"y!?'1y- i",,iii" iiri'oi'ww oF MANDAMUS dectarrns i;i: 'k';l;s:;;;'"piics r'to e/sa6rzo26 dt 26 0e 2026 ')i,ixli|'["ii"' wmbot of LADDER to the petitionefs" union in the ptace ot tts onginal symbol .'B,w Arrow" and consequently allotting the satd symDot IU tt tY ') ;;';r;;;;;i"' "'t irr"git' capricious' arbitrary'- 'Jii",,.rli,", ira in iioii'ion or Atl 14 & 1e (1) (c) ot ii]'6iniliirtion of tndia and direct the responde.nt 'Nit Z,- S "na 6 b allow the symbot -Bow Arrow'to the Detitioner union in the place of Ladder in the ensung 'iiion elections going lo be hetd on 09'10'2026 in the interest of iustice and fair play -. ."

2. Heard Mr.V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Mallu Nethan Reddy, learned Assistant Government pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr'A Kedarnath, ... Petitioner

\- learned counsel representing I\Ir.R.Anuragr, learned Counsel for TGSRTC and lVr.Naresh Kumerr Neemkar, counsel for respondent No.5. perused the record. Standing learned

3. Brief facts of the case: - General Secretary. elections were held 3-1 The petitioner-Union was registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, vide Registration No. A_4528 datect 2t 10201.1 tn the 2012 elections, the petitioner, I\4r. lVl.Thomas Reddy, was elected as President and respondent No.5, t\Ir.E.Ashwathama Reddy, as After expiry of their two_year term, no fresh l\4eanwhile, disputes arost: within the Union, leading to the emergence of tWb groups, ailegedly due to respondent No.5's failure to address the workers, grievances. On 29.01 .2021 , the petitioner,s group held a rneeting of Union delegates from across Telangana, attended b,y 319 detegates, wherein the petitioner and others were chosen as office_bearers. Subsequently, on 08.04.2021 , lhe group headr:d by respondent No.5 held a meeting attended by 238 delegates, wherein its office- bearers were also elected. Both groups submitkld representations before respondent No.3 seeking recognition of their respective OtfiCe-bearers. Upon considering the rival claims' respondent No 3 issued Form-B dated 11 08 2021 ' recognizing the petitioner's sroup - , as the office-bearers of the Union to represent the workers before respondent No.4-Management 3.2 Aggrieved by the Form-B dated 'l 108.2021 , MrE.Ashwathama Reddy filed V',1 .P.No.24872 ol 2021 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of on 20.12.2021 , directing the parties to approach respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.3, by order dated 18.05.2022, held that the petitioner, Mr. M. Thomas Reddy, was entitled to lead the Union. Challenging the said order, a member of respondent No.S's group filed W.P.No.24317 of .2022 and the same was disposed of by order dated 07.07.2022 directing respondent No.3 to pass a detailed order in accordance with the earlier directions. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.3, by order dated 04.10.2022, held that the group headed by Mr. lvl.Thomas Reddy was entitled to continue as the elected body of the Union. 3.3 Challenging the order, dated 04.10.2022 passed by respondent No.3, Mr.E.Ashwathama Reddy and others filed W P.No.38731 of 2022. Though status quo was initially granted by this Court, the writ petition was disposed of on 03.06.2024, directing Mr.Ashwathama Reddy's group to approach the learned Civil Court. Pursuant thereto, O.S.No.5495 of 2024 was filed by Mr.Ashwathama Reddy before the learned Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against Mr.Thomas Reddy's group, seeking to declare the Forg-B, dated 11.08.2021 passed by respondent -

No.3 herein as null and void and conduct freslr elections However, no interim order was granted therein. Thus, the Form-B, dated 11.08.2021 and the proceedings, dated 04.10 2022 have neither beensetasidenorStayedandtheSameccntinuetooperatetill date.

3.4. Thereafter, Thomas Reddy's group approached SBl, RTC Kala Bhavan, Hyderabad, seeking permission to operate the Union Bankaccount.AstheBankdeclinedtopermits;uchoperationonthe groundthattheSignaturesofthesaidgroupdidnottallywiththose of the earlier office bearers, Thomas Reddy's group filed W.P.No.9996 of 2026 before this Colrt and this Court by an interim order, dated 02.04.2026, directed the Bank tc permit the Thomas Reddy's group to operate the Union's Bank account ln the said writ petition, fi/lr.Ashwathama Reddy and others hiave filed I A No 2 of 2026 seeking to implead them as respondent Nos'6 to 8' which was dismissed by this Court on 01 .O7.2026 Aggrieved thereby' Mr.Ashwathama Reddy and others have preferred W.A.S.R.No 36270 of 2026. The Registry raised an objection regardingthemaintainabilityoftheWritAppealandthematterWaS placedbeforetheHon,bleDivisionBenchclfthisCourt'After hearing, the said Appeal was dismissed on 17'08 2026' confirming the objections raised by the Registry.

-

3 5. Pursuant to the notice, dated 31.08.2026 issued by respondent No.3, l\4r. Thomas Reddy attended the meeting held on 07.09.2026 and submitted a representation, dated 08.09.2026, before respondent No.3, seeking allotment of the Union's existing symbol "Bow and Arrow" as election symbol. As respondent No.3 refused to receive the said representation, it was sent by post and received by respondent No.3 on 10.09.2026. However, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings, dated 11.09.2026 through Whats App, not permitting the petitioner-Union from contesting in the forthcoming TGSRTC elections on the ground that a civil suit is pending. At the meeting held on 15.09.2026, Mr.Thomas Reddy requested respondent No.3 to withdraw the impugned proceedings, dated 1 1.09.2026, but respondent No.3 refused for the same.

3.6. Aggrieved by the proceedings, dated 11.09.2026 issued by respondent No.3, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3'1 166 of 2026 before this Court. By an interim order, dated 18.09.2026 in l.A.No.1 of 2026, this Court suspended the said proceedings and directed respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to permit the petitioner-Union, headed by Mr.Thomas Reddy, to contest in the forthcoming elections 3.7. Pursuant to the said interim order, the petitioner-Union was permitted to contest the forthcoming elections and, accordingly, submitted a represenlation dated 21 .09.2026 seeking continuation \- of the symbol "Bow and Arrow" contested lhe 2012 and 2016 The petitiorrer-Union had earlier elections on the said sYmbol. However, by proceedings dated 26.09.2026, respondent Nos 3 and 6 allotted "Ladder" to the petitioner-Union ancl "Bow and Arrow" to respondent No.5, without affording an opport-rnity or hearing The petitioner's subsequent representation dated 26 09 2026 seeking restoration of the said symbol is pending consideration Hence, the present writ Petition.

Submissions

made bv the learnecl cou nsel for the petitioner: Learned counsel for the petitioner subntits that the Election Notification was issued on 18.09.2026 ancl the elections are scheduled to be held on 09.10.2026. He submits that the petitioner- Union has contested in the elections in the yenrs 2012 and 2016 using the symbol "Bow and Arrow", thereby givirrg the said symbol a distinct identity and recognition among the employees of the TGSRTC. He further submits that in 2016 elections, respondent No.3 has allotted the symbol "Bow and Arrolv" to the petitioner- Union, pursuant to whrch, respondent No.4 issued Circular No PD- 22t2016, dated 08.08.2016 recognizing the petitioner-Union as a recognized Union. He further submits that even as per the proceedings dated 0a 10.2022, the petitioner-Union has been

t-- making representations to the concerned authorities, including respondent Nos.3 and 4 using the said symbol. 4.1 . Learned counsel further submits that the allotment of the symbol "Ladder" to the petitioner-Union, while allotting the symbol "Bow and Arrow", which has consistently been associated with the petitioner-Union, to respondent No.5-Union, is arbitrary and contrary to the previous practice. He further submits that respondent No.S- Union had earlier been allotted the symbol "Charminar" and, therefore, submits that the impugned action of respondent Nos.3 and 6 in allotting the symbol "Bow and Arrow" to respondent No.5- Union is borne out of mala fide considerations and intended to confer an undue advantage upon respondent No.5-Union. Pursuant to the interim order dated 18.09.2026, the petitioner-Union was permitted to contest in the forthcoming elections and accordingly submitted a representation dated 21 .09.2026 seeking continuation of the said symbol. However, without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.3 by impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2026, allotted the "Ladder" symbol to the petitioner- Union and allotted "Bow and Arrow" to respondent No.5. 4.2, Learned counsel further submits that the impugned action, particularly at the final stage of the election process, is arbitrary and has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner-Union. The change of - the symbol at this stage of the election process is likely to create confusion among the electorate and seriously prejudice the petitioner-u nion in the forthcoming elections. He therefore submits that the impugned proceeding dated 26.09.2026 is liable to be set aside 4.3. ln support of his contentions, learned rlounsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in All Party Hill Leaders' Conference, Shitlong v. Captain W.A. Sangma and othersl , wherein, at paragraph No.29, it was held as follows:- '29. For the purpose of holding elect;ons' allctment of symbol will find a prime place in a country where tlliteracy.is siill very hign. lt has been found from experience that symbol as a device for casting votes in favour of a candidarc of one's choice has proved an invaluable aid Apart from ths' just as people develop a sense of honour, glory and patr;otrc pride for a ftag of one's country, similarly great feNor and emotions are geierated for a symbol representing a political pafty' This is pafticularly so in a parliamentary detmocraclt which is conduc,ted on pafty tines. People aftet a time identify themselves with the symbol and the flag. These are great unifying insignia which cannot all of a sudden be eff rced "

4.4. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Samaiwadi Forward Bloc Pafty, Telangana Stafe v. Election Commission of lndia, New Delhi and anothef , wherein, at paragraph No.13, it was held as follows:- ' ( 1977) 4 scc 16l t zotq (3) eLo 3(;8 (t s) (t)u)

-

"13. A person contesting on behatf of a recognised political paiy will inherit the symbot altotted to the recognised pafty' An independent candidate or a candidate contesting on behalf of an unrecognised politicat pafty has to chose a symbol from the list of 'free'symbols available or chose the symbol suggested by it if it conforms to the conditions laid down in Para 1O-B of the Election Symbols Order. Resevation of symbol woutd imply that a recognized political paiy would get an oppoftunity to make canvass with its symbot throughout the area, which facility is not available to the political pad,es, whose symbols have not been reserved /t ,s stafed in the counter-affidavit that the similar declslons were taken when it is an apprehension of elector mistaking one symbol for another on the representation of political paiies that the symbol is similar to their symbol. The Supreme Courl in Subramanian Swamy's case (supra) held;

34. "......A symbol is not a tangible thing nor does it generate any wealth, it is only the insignia which is associated with the pafticular political pafty so as to help'the millions of illiterate voters to properly exercise thei right to franchise in favour of the candidate of their choice belonEng b a particular pafty. ln the election process tt ts not merely the individual candidate's personality or his identity that'weighs with the voters. /t ls undoubtedly a very relevant factor but along with it the voter also can and does vote in favour of the pafty. lt is under such circumstances that the symbol becomes relevant and impoiant. However, all that it provides is lhe essentra/ associafio, that it has with a pafticular pany. The concerned pafty would have a legal right to exclusively use the same but that is not, in our considered opinion, a propeiy of the pady and, therefore, the Election Commission which is required to ensure free, fair and clean elections have every right to deprive a pafticular pafty with a dismal peiormance of that symbol. The Etection Commission puts a clamp on the right of such a political parly to use the symbol rightfully We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the argument that symbol is a property of a pafty and, therefore, such properly cannot be taken away from that political party. The symbol may be an outcome of intellectual exercise but it does not become an "intellectual property" which concept has monetary implications. ln case of a political pafty as contemplated in Symbols Order, monetary angle is conspicuously absent."

-

4.5. Hence, he prayed this Court to suspend the impugned proceedings vide No.8/94612026 dated 26.011.2026 and directing respondent Nos.2, 3 and 6 to allot the earli'er symbol "Bow and Arrow" to the petitioner Union in the place of "Ladder" in the ensuing Union elections to be held on 09.10 2026.

5. Submis sions made bv the learned Assistant Govearnoen t Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Additional Advocate General: 5.1 . Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the election process has already commenced and is at an ztdvanced stage. with polling scheduled to be held on 19.10.2021i. He submits that respondent No.3, being the Joint Commissioner of Labour, is the competent authority for allotment of election symbols. He further submits that, once the election process has lleen set in motion, judicial interference by a Constitutional Court is, impermissible, and that any grievance relating to the electoral process, ought to be raised in accordance with law after completion o1' the election 5.2. ln support of his contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader relied upon the order, dated 04.06.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.No.17058 of 2026, wherein, th€, iudgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, -

Namakkal Constituencf and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Officel, were referred to, and at paragraph Nos.16, 17, 1B and '1 9, it was held as follows:-

16. The law governing judicial interference in electoral matters is well settled. ln N.P. Ponnuswami's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the election process has commenced, Courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering with the electoral process and permit the same to run its course. The said principle was reiterated and elaborated in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the election process has begun, no order should normally be passed by the Courts interfenng with the election process. The rationale underlylng the aforesaid principle is that democratic processes should not be interrupted midway by judicial intervention except in extraordinary situations vthere lnterference becomes indrspensable. 17 ln the considered view of this Court, the relief sought by the petrtioners, if granted, would necessarily result in interference with an ongoing election proc6ss. Any direction at this stage requiring modification of symbol allocation would inevitably impact the notified election programme and may disturb the conduct of elections scheduled to be held on 06.06.2026. The remedy, which is always available to an aggrieved party, is by way of an Election Petition, Civil Suit or any other remedy recognized by law, as may be applicable to the facts of the case, after the elections are oveT.

18. Even otherwrse, the petitioners have failed to establish any Iegal or statutory right to insist upon allotment of the symbol "Bow & Arrow". The entire claim is founded on the assertion that the same symbol had been allotted in previous elections. However, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the said symbol stands registered, reserved or otherwise protected in favour of the Union under any statutory provision, rule, regulation or bindrng scheme having the force of law. Mere allotment of a symbol in previous elections does not confer a perpetual, vested or exclusive right to claim allotment of the same symbol in future elections. 19 At best, previous allotment may constitute a past practice. Such practice, however, does not mature into an enforceable legal right unless supported by a statutory framework. The doctrine of legitimate expectation also cannot be stretched to create a substantive right where none exists in law. Therefore, ' 1rssz1 scn zr8 o 11928; r scc 405

- L2 even assuming that the Union represented L,y the petitioners had contested previous elections under the symbol "Bow & Arrow', that circumstance by itself does not confer a legally enforceable right to seek a wrlt directing allotr,ent of the same symbol in the ensuing election.

5.3. Furthermore, the petitioner has failel to establish any statutory, vested or exclusive right over the symbol "Bow and Arrow". Allotment of symbols is merely an administrative arrangement intended to facilitate the conduct of elections and no union can claim perpetual entitlement to a particular symbol merely because it had been allotted in previous t:lections. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage would disrupt the election schedule and any alteration in symbol allocatiorr at this stage would adversely affect the smooth conduct of elections;.

5.4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and have no application to the facts of the present case. ln particular, the judgment in All Party Hill Leaders' Conference (supra) is untenable in the present case, as the said case arose out of an intra-party dispute within the All Party Hill Leaders' Conference (APHLC), a recognized re'3ional political party to which the reserved election symbol "Flower' had already been allotted Subsequent to some of its members; merging with the lndian National Congress, a dispute arose regar,Jing the entitlement

- to the reserved symbol. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, upon determining that the concerned group represented the continuing APHLC, held that it was entitled to retain the said symbol.

5.5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the present case stands on a different footing. The petitioner-Union has no statutory or legally enforceable right to insist upon allotment of the election symbol "Bow and Arrow" to any particular group merely because it had contested in the previous elections held in 2012 and 2016 using the said symbol. Mere use of the symbol in previous elections does not confer any vested right to claim its allotment in subsequent elections.. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition

6. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the principal issue that arises for consideration is whether, at this stage of the election process, this Court can interfere with the allotment of the election symbol to the petitioner- U nion.

7. lt is not in dispute that the Election Notification was issued on 18.09.2026 and that polling is scheduled to be held on 09.10.2026. Thus, the election process has already commenced and is at an advanced stage. The settled legal position is that once the election process is set in motion, the Constitutional Court should ordinarily - refrain from interfering with the same, so as to ensure that the electoral process is completed without interruplion.

8. Though the petitioner-Union had been allotted the symbol "Bow and Arrow" in the previous elections, suc;h prevtous allotment, by itself, cannot be construed as conferring any vested or enforceable right upon the petitioner-Union to r;laim a lotment of the same symbol in the ensuing elections. ln ,he absence of any statutory provision, rule or binding scheme reserving the said symbol in favour of the petitioner-U nion, the pditionet cannot claim allotment of the said symbol as a matter of lega entitlement

9. The grievance of the petitioher regarding the change of symbol and the alleged failure to afford an opportunity of hearing can be raised before the appropriate forum in etccordance with law. At this stage, any interference with the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2026 would have the effect of interrupting or altering the ongoing election process.

10. ln view of the aforesaid circumstances ard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) v and Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia at this stage.

-

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Al Sd/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate IOPUC]

2. One CC to SRI NARESH KUMAR NEEMKAR, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies I : To, BSR tk,, 1,,'

HIGH COURT DATED: 2910912026

ORDER

WP.No.32590 of 2026 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS CC TODAY e S rArE ).

(]

-)co '-i--.=:'r' \c .-) (, u C' ;lt {Br.l