Telangana High Court

WP/37002/2025 of Telangana BC Sankshema Sangam Vs The State of Telangana on 4 December 2025

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 37002 OF 2025 Between: AND 1

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

[ 3489 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 37002 OF 2025 Between: AND

Telangana BC Sankshema Sangam, Regd. No.108/2010, Represented by lt's State President Mekapothula Narender Goud, Office at B.C.Bhavan, H.No.3-6-42711, 2nd Floor, St. No. 4 and 5, Beside Taruni Jewelers, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Social Welfare) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (BC Welfare) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Tribal Welfare) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

4. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Panchayath Raj) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

5. The State Election Commission of Telangana, Rep., by its Chief eletroral Officer, PTI Buildings, lst Floor, DTCP Building, Opp AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana

6. The State Election Commissioner, Office At PTI Buildings, 1st Floor, DTCP Building, Opp AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana.

7. The District Collector- of, Adilabad District

8. The District Collector- of, Bhadradi Kothagudem District.

9. The District Collector- of , Hanumakonda District

10. The District Collector- of, Jagitial District. 1 1 . The District Collector- of , Jangaon District. 1 2. The District Collector- of , Jayashankar Bhupalapalli District

13. The District Collector- of, Jogulamba Gadwal District

14. The District Collector- of, Kamareddy District. 1 5. The District Collector- of, Karimnagar District-

16. The District Collector- of, Khammam District. '17. The District Collector- of, Komaram Bhim Asifabad Dist ct.

18. The District Collector- of, Mahabubabad District.

19. The District Collector- of, Mahabubad District.

20. The District Collector- of , Manchirial District. 21 . The District Collector, - of Medak District.

22. The District Collector- of, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

23. The District Collector- of, Mulugu District.

24. The District Collector- of, Nagarkurnool District.

25. The District Collector, - of Nalgonda District.

26. The District Collector- of, Narayanpet District.

27. The District Collector- of, Nirmal District.

28. The District Collector- of, Nizambad District.

29. The District Collector- of, Peddapalli District.

30. The District Collector- of, Rajanna Sircilla District. 31 . The District Collector- of, Ranag Reddy District.

32. The District Collector- of, Sanaga Reddy District.

33. The District Collector- of , Siddipet Diskict.

34. The District Collector- of, Suryapet District.

35. The District Collector- of, Vikarabad District.

36. The District Collector- of, Wanaparthi Diskict.

37. The District Collector- of, Waranagal District.

38. The District Collector- of, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndie praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly 'ne in the Nature of OUO WARRANTO or any other appropriate writ or directio I to the respondents allocation reservations to Backward Class prior to two or itree days of State Election Notification No. 1085/TGSEC-PRI2O25, cazette Nc 60 of 2025 without call for public opinion about the reducing the B.C. reservation of seats trom 24 oh to 17 ok Compared with Reservations of Election Report in Gram panchayats Telangana-2019 and 2013 are arbitrary and contrary to law, and violative of fair play of section 9, 11, 17,201 of the Telangana panchayat raj act-2018 and Articles 14, 243c of the constitution of lndia and 'further violation of obey the orders to file counter about of allocation reservations to Backward class in local bodies' in l.A. No.1 and 2 of 2O2S in W.p. No.30217 of 2O2S connected batch cases, Consequently declare the respondents No. 7 to 3g proceedings dated 22-11-2025, 23-11-2025, 24-11-2OZS of improper allocation reservations to Backward class prior to two or three days of state Election Notification No.1085/TGSEC-PPU2025, Gazette No. 60 of 2025 without cail for public opinion about the reducing the B.C. reservation of seats from Excluding-Muslim_ Reservations 24'/o lo 17 Yo compared with Reservations of Election Report in Gram Panchayats Telangana-2o19 and 2013 are arbitrary, bad in eye of law, null and void in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondents to provide the informalion in view of Articte 243c of Constitution of lndian and Section 11,17 of Telangana panchayat Raj Act about what is grace period or duration for declaration of reservations before election notification and to place before this Hon'ble court, about report of Backward Class reservation report in State Election Notification No..1095/TGSE C-pRl2O2S, reservation repo( of Backward class conducted in state Election Notification 20'13, reservation report of Backward Class conducted in State Election Notification 20 19 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BASKULA ATHIK Counsel foi the Respondents: SRI ASUDARSHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER

- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF I ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SANI KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCI SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.37002 of 2025 04.12.202s Bctrveen Tclangana IIC Sankshema Sangam, Rcgd. No. 10ti/2010. Rep. by its State presidenr Mckapothula Narender Goud, Office at: B.C.Bhavan H.No.3-6-427l1. 2"d Floor, St.No.4 ancl 5, Be side -I'aruni .lcwr:iers, Himayathnagar, I Iyderabad. .l)etitioner AND 'f hc State of 1'elangana, Rcp. by its Principal Secretary (Social Welfare), Se ,. rerariat $)ildings. Hyderabad and J7 otheYs. ... {espondents OItDER, (per iton'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) Heard N4r. Baskula Athik, leamed counsel for:, e petitioner ancl Mr. A.Sudalshan Reddy, learned Advocate Ge r :ral lor the respondents. Perused the record. L-- \--

)

2. The present is a writ petition which has been filed seeking for issuance for writ of quo warranto.

3. The relief sought for is against respondent Nos.7 to 38, who are District Collectors of 3 t districts in the State of Telangana. The petitioner seems to be more aggrieved of the allocation and reservation of backward class seats in the forthcoming gram panchayat elections.

4. At the outset, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, firstly on account ol the specific bar under Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, lor the reason that the election notification having already been published on 25.11'2025 and once the election notification has already been published and election process has also cotnmenced, it would not be, at this j uncture, permissible for the writ Court to entertain the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner. Thirdly, for the reason that a quo warranto could had been issued in the event if the petitioner would have challenged the authority of respondent Nos'7 to 38 insofar as hotding the office of the District Collectors which is not \- !- the grievance nor is it the relief sought, for which e so the writ of quo warranto would not be maintainable.

For all the al'oresaid reasons, we are declirrrr c l.o enteftain the writ petition. However, the right of the petitiorr - would stand reserved to avail such other remedies as would be av rilabte to him under law

Thc writ petirion is accordingly dismissed. Th:.e shall be no oltler as to costs. Consecluently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Ass r rAN?D#%,3YRXA ;EcIi6ToFFIcER One CC to SRt BASKULA ATH|K, Advocate.[OpUC] Iy.""rtt;ii6lvocArE GENERAL, Hish court for the ri rte of reransana at Two CD Copies

J BSR BS

+y HIGH COURT DATED: 0411212025

ORDER

WP.No.37002 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS / O (-) .ll1i -,')r'- :. ----. 0t * ll \) t a

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead