IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, J.Sreenivas Rao
Telangana Legislative Assembly, Rep. by its Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Alleti Maheshwar Reddy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Aradhe, C.J.
Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the State of Telangana appears for Mr. K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. R.V.Pavan Maitreya, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.1157 of 2024.
Mr. G.Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. S. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.1158 and 1160 of 2024.
Mr. Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. Thoom Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.A.No.1157 of 2024.
Mr. P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. P.Sri Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.A.No.1160 of 2024.
Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appears for Mr. L. Preetham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in W.A.No.1158 of 2024.
Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. I.V.Siddhivardhana, learned Special Government Pleader, appears through video conferencing for the respondent No.2 in W.A.No.1157 of 2024.
2. By common order dated 09.09.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.9472, 11098 and 18553 of 2024, the learned Single Judge dealt with the grievance of the
Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand
S.A.Sampath Kumar vs. Kale Yadaiah
Mineral Area Development Authority vs. Steel Authority of India
India Cement Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu
State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Limited
Rajendra Singh Rana vs. Swami Prasad Maurya
Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha vs. Kuldeep Bishnoi
Charan Lal Sahu vs. Union of India
Prakash Amichand Shah vs. State of Gujarat
State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries
Sanjay Singh vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Rajendra Singh Rana vs. Swami Prasad Maurya
Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra
Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. M/s.Bharat Coking Coal Limited
Dr. Shah Faesal vs. Union of India
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil vs. Karnataka Legislative Assembly
Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs. Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat and others
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mills (Private) Limited
Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure Development Board vs. BSS Parihar
The Speaker has the exclusive authority to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, and must act within a reasonable time to uphold constitutional mandates.
The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within three months to uphold constitutional objectives and prevent political defections.
Judicial review is permissible in disqualification matters, and the Speaker must decide petitions within a reasonable timeframe to uphold democratic principles.
Point of law: Election - Disqualification - No perversity - Speaker passed the impugned disqualification order after taking into consideration all the pleadings, newspaper reports, the photographs an....
Point of law: Election – Disqualification - No perversity - Speaker passed the impugned disqualification order after taking into consideration all the pleadings, newspaper reports, the photographs an....
(1) Political imbroglio in State Legislature of Maharashtra – Supreme Court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under Tenth Schedule in first instance. There are no extraordin....
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.