Abhiman Gandhi Naik Dharavath v. 1. The State of Telangana

7. The Chief Election ffircer, Election Commission, State of Telangana, Department, Telangana State, Hyderabad. HYderabad' ...RESP.NDENT' Petition under Art[cle 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit libd therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue pleased to issue a Writ, Order or a Direction more Part'tcu{arly in the nature of a Writ of Mardamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 6 in showing the discrimination and challenging the vires and constitutional validity of Sec.21(3) of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 in view of the Fundamental Rights Guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitutbn of lndia and shotifing ttrc discrimination between the Urban People and Rural People reg,arding the contesting of candidates in local-body elections of Gram Panchayat and Municipal Elections, in fact who are having, the three children's, lhey are permifting the candidates to contest the Local-body elections of Gram panchayat, MpTC Member and ZPTC Member posts of local-body elections under the Telangana Gram Panchayaties Act and permitting the Town People t:o contest the Municipal Councilor , Mayor, Cooperator and Chairman. to the lr,tunicipalities under the Provisions of Telangana Municipalities Act, even though by having the three children's, showing the discrimination regarding the local-borjy elections under one State is highly illegal, arbitrary, uneonstitutional and violertion of Articles, 13, 14, and 19 of the constitution of lndia and also in violation of principles of Natural Justice. lA NO: 1 OF m25 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying,that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rniry be pteased to direct the respondents to direct the respondents to stay all further proceedings under the pmvisions of section 21 (3) of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2:OlB and direct them to permit the aspirant candidates to contest the local-body elections by having three childnen's pending disposal of the above writ petition (plL). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.NARENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respqndent No.1: Gp FOR GENERAL ADMN DEPT Counsel for.the Respondent Nos.2,TO 5: M/s. SHAZIA PARVEEN, Gp FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.6: cP FOR MPCL ADMN & TJRBAN DEV Gounsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI P.SUEHEER RAO, SC FOR TSEC PAI{CHAYAT RAJ & RURAL OEV The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOTVBLE THE CHIEFIUSTICE SRI APARESH KUIT.fAR SINGH AND THE HOrf Br^E SRr rusficE G.M.MOHIJDDTN Order --*r- Heard Mr. G.Narender Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Shazia Parveen, leamed Govemment Pleader for Panchayat Rai appearing for respondents No.2 and 5 and Mr. P.Sudheer Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Election Commission appeadng for respondent No.7.

2. The uiret of Section 2L(3) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (h.ereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2018), which restricts the eligibility of a person ro contest elections to the panchayat on grounds of having more thao two children, has once again been challenged in the present lVrit Petition though this issue had &awn the attention of this Court in W.P.Nos.22842 and 22991 of 2024 t,ide order dated 05.09.2024 and turther in !7.PGIL)GR).No.6578 of 2025 d& ot&t dated

03.03.2025 following the ratio rendered by the Apcx Cour in ) ) r\ Javed v. State of Haryanar on a similar legrslrrtion by the State of Haryana being Haryana panchayat Raj Acg 1994.

3. The Apex Court in rhe case of Javed (supra) ar page No.59, categorically held thar there is no fundzrmental right to any person to stand as a candidate for r,lection to the Municipatiry. The impugned disquatifi6a66n doe:; not violare rhe fundamental aght to practice any professi(rrr or carry any occupation, trade or business. The Apex Court further observed that disqualificarion on the right to conrest an election by having more than two living children does not conuaveoe any fundamental right nor ir crosses the limits of reasonability. Rather, it is a disq',,liEcation conceptually devised in national interesl Therefore, rhe plea raised on behalf ol rhe petitioner to oace again quesrion rhe ttitzs o[ Section 2l(3) ol'rhe Act of 2OIg, has to fail in view of the pronouncemens of the Apex Court and followed by the Coordinate Bench o[ this C,c,urt. ' lzoo:; e scc :os 3

4. Accordingly, dre $7ric Petition, being devoid of merig is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.AJAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR s //TRIJE COPY// CT]ON OFFICER One CC to SRI G.NARENDER REDDY Advocate I State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. IOU I 2. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court forthe 3. Two CCs to G P FOR GENERAL ADMN DEPT, High Court for the State of TJ Telangana, at Hydera Two CCs to GP FOR of Telarqana, at Hyd One CC to SRI P.SU Two CD Copies bad. [Olrrl MPCL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State erabad. [OUT] DHEER RAO, SC FOR TSEC [OPUC] To 4 5 6 PSK. LS I 1TIGH COURT DATED:0311112025 ORDER WP(P|L).No.4 of 2o2s J ( 1 ilf: S 14 '€ u 22tr0ttAr * { * n q .. 6;1t,!) ((\ l' a .A + DtsMtsstNc THE WR|T pETtTtoN (pil-) WITHCNJT COSTS \r ?r"