IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION No.39009 OF 2025

DATE : 18.12.2025

Between:

Palugula Uma Rani

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana & 6 others

…Respondents

ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the action

of the respondents No.2 to 6 in declaring the 7^th respondent as Sarpanch, Vasalmarry Gram Panchayat, Thurkapally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, though there was a ballot paper missing while counting the votes for the post of Sarpanch, as

illegal and arbitrary.

2. It is submitted that in total, 1235 votes were polled but only 1234 votes were counted for the post of Sarpanch. It is submitted that in Ward No.2, total 119 were counted for the post of Ward member whereas for the post of Sarpanch 118 votes only were counted. It is submitted that though an objection was raised on

the next day by the petitioner and others that a ballot paper was found at the widow of the counting hall, the same was not taken into consideration and no action has been taken thereon.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 56 Telangana Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1961 to submit that where there is any issue regarding ballot paper, i.e, either of missing or damage, the Returning Officer has to report the same to the State Election Commission, who shall take decision thereon under Section 231 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. He submitted that in this case, the Returning Officer has not followed the procedure and has not reported about the missing ballot paper to the State Election Commission and has taken a decision himself and declared 7^th respondent as Sarpanch and thus acted contrary to the Rules. Therefore, he prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to re-count the votes or to conduct elections afresh.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for State Election Commission submitted that counting was done in accordance with the procedure and there was no discrepancy in the votes polled and counted. He further submitted that two contesting candidates got equal number of votes (609 each) and one of the contesting candidates demanded for recounting and as per the demand, all the Sarpanch votes were recounted and the result was the same. Therefore, as per the guidelines, if two candidates contesting any seat happen to secure the highest number of votes and their votes are equal in number, the result will have to be decided by lot and accordingly, the lot was drawn and the winner was declared. He further submitted that petitioner can only challenge the same before the Election Tribunal and there is no case for interference at this stage by his Court.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court finds that the allegations of the petitioner are all factual and need verification. Further, Article 243-O of the Constitution of India as under:-

“243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution—

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seals to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court;

(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State.”

6. In view of the same, an Election Petition can be decided by the Election Tribunal. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Election Tribunal, if she so chooses. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 18.12.2025 dv