SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
SUJOY PAUL, RENUKA YARA, JJ
Pittala Ravinder – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/2921/2025



The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2025, affirming that legislative provisions take precedence over statutory rules.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2025 - Constitutional validity - The petitioner challenged the inclusion of certain Grampanchayats within municipalities without following statutory rules. The court found that the enabling provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 permit such amendments. (Paras 4, 6, 9, 10)

(B) Legislative Competence - The court ruled that the amendment was within legislative competence and that rules cannot override the provisions of the Act. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act, arguing that statutory rules were not followed in including Grampanchayats within municipalities.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Amendment Act was constitutional and did not violate any statutory rules.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Amendment Act was valid despite the alleged non-compliance with statutory rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Act take precedence over the rules, and the amendment was valid under the enabling provisions of the Act.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)

Sri Rahul Reddy Sarasani, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri G.Veeraswamy, learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department, for respondent No.1; Sri E.Venkata Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for respondent No.2; Sri D.Surender Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs, for respondent No.4; and Sri K.Siddarth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.6.

2. Learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, fairly submit that this writ petition is squarely covered by a recent order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2943 of 2025 dated 17.04.2025 and can be decided in terms of the said order.

3. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed.

4. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition recorded as under:-

“Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri G.Veeraswamy, learned Government Pleader for General Administration, for respondent No.1 and Ms. Gudipati Sharvani, learned counsel representing Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

2. With the consent finally heard.

3. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the constitutional validity of the Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2025 (Amendment Act). In nut shell, the case of the petitioner is that by impugned amendment Act, certain Grampanchayats have been brought within the ambit of the municipalities. The petitioner is aggrieved by such inclusion which forms part of entry 54 C which reads thus:

54C: Moinbad (by merging Moinabad, Himayathnagar, Yenka pally, Chilkur, Murthuzaguda, Peddamangalaram, Surangal and Aziznagar Grampanchayats.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a singular contention to assail the impugned Amendment Act that before bringing the Grampanchayats within the ambit of municipalities, the respondents had to follow the statutory rules namely:- The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/from the Jurisdiction of the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2015 (Rules, 2015). These Rules have not been followed. In the absence of following those rules, the impugned enactment is bad in law.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration supported the impugned amendment and submits that before this amendment, an ordinance was brought into force, wherein similar exercise of bringing the Grampanchayats in municipality was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.15194 of 2024 and batch and the said writ petitions were dismissed by common order dated 05.12.2024. Now same ordinance has taken shape of full-pledged enactment. In view of said order, no interference can be made in the impugned amendment.

6. The next limb of argument is based on Section 299 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (Act, 2019). It is submitted that when the Rules are inconsistent with the Act itself, the Act will prevail. This aspect has been dealt with by while deciding WP.No.25194 of 2024 and batch. It is further urged that in view of sub-Section 3 of Section (3) of the Act, 2019, the amendment of the Act is in consonance with the enabling provision.

7. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

8. Sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 reads thus:

(3) The State Legislature may, by way of amendment to this Act, modify or add or alter schedule I or II of this Act so as to,-

(a) form a new Municipality by separation of local area from any Municipality, or by uniting two or more local areas or part of areas, or by uniting any local area to a part of Municipality;

(b) include within a Municipality any local area;

(c) exclude from a Municipality, any area comprised therein;

(d) constitute any local area as a Municipality;

(e) alter the name of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top