IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
Kotha Arthica - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 8719 of 2024
Decided On : 10-04-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 - Writ of Mandamus - The petitioner challenges the issuance of a notice by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary, claiming it violates principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that the notice was issued without proper authority and lacks justification. The respondents argue that the petitioner was removed from her position as Chairperson following a No-confidence motion, and the election process for her replacement is underway. The court finds the petition frivolous and lacking basis, emphasizing the need to uphold the election process and penalize misuse of judicial resources. (Paras 1, 6, 25, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality, challenges a notice issued regarding her position after a No-confidence motion led to her removal. The notice was issued amidst ongoing election processes for her replacement.
Findings of Court:
The court dismisses the Writ Petition, stating it is without basis and emphasizes the importance of not interfering with the election process once initiated.
Issues: The main issue addressed is whether the notice issued to the petitioner was valid given her removal from office and the ongoing election process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the election process must not be disrupted once initiated, and frivolous petitions that waste judicial resources will be penalized.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee.
ORDER :
(T. Vinod Kumar, J.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4th respondent and with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, and the lis involved in this Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.
4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that initially she has been elected as ward member of the 4th respondent Municipality and thereafter was elected as the Chairperson of the said Municipality and is continuing to function as such.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent being fully aware of the election notification issued for the Parliament elections, had issued the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024 without even mentioning any ROC number which itself proves the unethical practice adopted by the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the above, the petitioner had sought for suspension of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2024.
6. Petitioner by referring to the impugned notice contends that though the same pertains to the Adibatla Municipality, the same has been issued under the signature of the 3rd respondent who is unconnected with the affairs of the said Municipality; and that no reason is specified for the issuance of such notice.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that firstly, the claim of the petitioner continuing to hold the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality is wrong, as the petitioner was removed from the office of Chairperson in a No-confidence motion moved on 09.02.2024 and the Government having issued the G.O. Ms. No. 55 M.A. & U.D department, dt. 23.03.2024, notifying the motion of No-confidence against the petitioner having been moved successfully on account of which a casual vacancy to the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality having arisen, the petitioner cannot continue to claim as the Chairperson of the Municipality; that secondly, the petitioner having unsuccessfully challenged the motion of No-confidence moved against her, and fully being aware of her not holding the position of Chairperson of the Municipality continuing to claim as Chairperson both in the cause title of the Writ Petition as well as in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner only goes to show that the petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing the true and correct facts.
8. Learned Government Pleader further contends that consequent to the casual vacancy arising in the office of the Chairperson of the Municipality on account of No-confidence motion being moved against the petitioner and the said vacancy being notified on 23.03.2024, the Telangana State Election Commission had issued notification vide proceedings No. 484/TSEC - ULBs/2024 dated 27.03.2024 to conduct of election to the casual vacancies in the offices of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, Adibatla Municipality as per the schedule appended to the notification in the form of annexure.
9.
N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde, 2001 INSC 248
P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti, 1997 INSC 535
Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath
Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Another v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Others
The court emphasized the importance of not interfering with the election process once initiated and penalized frivolous litigation.
The court reaffirmed that the duties of a Chairperson under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act must be upheld, and failure to oversee actions leading to financial loss constitutes misconduct warranting....
Point of law: It is thus well settled that writ petition should normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice. In the present case no show cause notice was even issued when t....
A no-confidence motion against a municipal Vice-Chairperson is valid without the necessity of specific reasons in the resolution, and adherence to statutory notice requirements fulfills procedural ju....
Point of law: The Court is also mindful that there is no specific embargo on exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even at notice stage, but in the circumstances of ....
Compliance with procedural laws in no-confidence motions under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act is essential, though timing of notice receipt versus issuance holds significance in evaluating valid par....
Procedural compliance in no confidence motion notices is sufficient; prior satisfaction of the authority is not necessary, affirming adherence to statutory requirements.
As per Rule 3 of the Rules, an Election Petition shall be instituted within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.