Pittala Ravinder v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in merging Chintakunta Gram Panchayath with Karimnagar Municipal Corporation by including the same in Sl.No. 2 of the Schedule ll of Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 published in Telangana Gazette on 0410112025 without following procedures laid down in The A.P. Municipalities (lnclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/ from tlre jurisdiction of the Municipalities/l',Jagara Panchayat) Rules, 2015 as arbitrrry, illegal and violative of principles of naturaljustice and consequently set asid(,, the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitic,n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circuntstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased pleased to direct tre respondents not to take further action in pursuance amendment made in Act 4 of 2025 wherein Chintakunta Grarn panchayat is merged witlr Karintnagar Municipal Corporation and includ inq the same in Schedule ll Sl. N: 2 of Telangana Municipalities Act, 20.1 9 published in Telangana Gazette tt 0410112025, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SARASANI RAHUL REDDy c o u n s e I ro r t h e R e s p o n d e n ts N o' 1 : 3 F' r?X="tff=t$t%"d M r N r s rRAr r o N Counsel for the Respondents No.2 : SRI E.VENKATA REDDy, Gp FOR MA&UD Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : GP FOR PANCHAYATH RA., counser ror the Respondents No'4 t^tr'rt'Iilff,T['J$]-r,r= ' AFFATRs Counsel forthe Respondents No.5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel forthe Respondents No.6: SRI K.SIDDHARATH REDDy, SC FOR KMC The Court made the following: ORDER I I a i I i I i I I I i i I I j I I THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.292 L of 2025 ORDER: (Per the Hon'bte the Acttng Chief Justice Sujoy pout) 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 2O25 dated 17.O4.2025 and can be decided in terms of the said order.

3. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above ald no other point is pressed. 4 This Court in the aJoresaid writ petition recorded as under:_ 1 "Sr i S.Satyam Rcddy, iearned Setlior Counsel irpperu-ing for Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learnccl counsr I lor the pctiti rLrer; Sri G.Vee rasu'amy, lcarned Gt,vr:rnment l)lcader for Gcneral Adrninistration, for resporlci':nt No.1 irr-rd Ms. GudipaLi Sharvani, leartled counsel |r-'1rrcs:nting Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, lcarttt:rl cotlnsel lirr-respondcnt No.6. ll. Wit'r Lhc <:onsent firtally heard

3. Thir; Pctition hled under Article 2?-6 of the Cons-itution challenges the constitutional valirlity of the 'lclangana Municipalitics (Amendment) Ar:1 , 2025 (Arne rdmcnt Act). In nut she1l, thc case of tl'rc p:titioner t!]aL by impugned amendment Act certain (lrarr panr-:hayats have bccn brought within 1.h'-: lrnbit of t.he nr unic:ipalilies. The petitioner is aggrievc<l by such ir-rcluslon q,l'rich forms part of entry 54 C s'lrit h reads rlrus: "5!'9, Mornbad (by merging N4oir-r rbad' (llrrlkur. Hirn i1'2r11-rnagar, Yenka pally, Murthuz:rguda, Peddamarigalaram, Surangal and Azi t aqar G rampanchavals. .1. Lerrrned counsel for the petitioner raiscd rt singular r:onterLtiorr to assail thc impugncd Ametldmen t Act that bcfor: bringing the Grampanchayats u'ithin t}'re ambit of nrur-ricipalitics, the rcspondents had to l'rl ou' the sLiltutlrv rules namely:- Thc Andhril Praclesh Municipatitics (lnclusion or Exclusiorl r>l Areas inlo/ i'om the Jurisdiction of the Municipalil it s/Nagar Pancralats) Rules, 20t5 (Rules, 2015). l'l'rc:'e Rules havc -rot bce n follou,cd. tn the abselcc of oliorving r hose .-ulcs. the impugned enactmenL is bad in I Lw .r. Or Ll'rt: other hand, lcarned Government PIt ader for \ilur-ricipal Administration supported the inrpugned rrmerrlment and submits that before L:'tis ztntendment, irn o rlilrurncc rvas brought into force, u'hercirL similar Lrxerci,;e of bringing the Grampanchrrl ats municipality was the subject matter of chrrllenge in W.P.l'l r. 1.5 194 of 2024 and batch and thc said writ petiticr-rs u,ere dismissed by common or<le: dated 3

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, 2O19). It is submitted that when the Rules are inconsistent with thc Act itself, the Act will prevail. This aspect has been dealt with by while deciding WP.No.25194 of 2024 and batch. 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. further urged

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

8. Sub-Section 3 of Section 3 of Municipalities Act, 2019 reads thus: the Teiangana (3) The State l,egislature may, by way of amendment to this Act, modify or add or a.lter schedule I or II of this Act so as to,- (a) form a new Municipality by separation of local area lrom an,r' 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) atter the name o[ any Municipality; (f) revise the boundary of municipal area; (g) dcscribe the boundaries of the Municipatity; (h) abolish a Municipality.

9. A plain reading of this enabling provision shows that the constitution of municipalities is permissible and said exercise can be done by way of amendment of the Act. New municipalities can be formed as well as new municipal areas. As noticed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not doubted the legislative competence in issuing the Amendment Act. The eye- brows are raised on the Amendment Act only on the ground that Rules are not followed. We are inclined to 4 r)bser\ e that said contention is misconct:ived. V,'hcn the nother Ar;t namely, the Telangana Munrcipalir.ics Act, .2O19, in sub-Section 3 of Section 3 pe-rrits the LegisLirtnre to amend the Act zrnd forn new \{unicr palitics, the Legislature has donc it rl it rin lour (rorn( r s ol Law. Thc provisions of the Act zrs u',:ll sctl.led, irre or .r l-righer pcdcstal than the provisions t f Rttles. ln ot rcr ivords, Rules are madc under thc .\< t anrl the I?ulcs. crrnnot govern thc provisrons of tlri Aci. SlecIion 3 13) is i n ir-rdependenl enabling provisior. 'l'his Court also, in the prcvious r turcl of t 0. litiga ior-i in WP.No.25194 of 2024 and bat:1r, clirted t)5.7:' ..),O24 , opincd as under: " 18 Tlrr-rs, from perusal of Section 29!) of th,: 20l9 Act. it is evidcnt that thc Rules framed u n<lcr Lhe 1965 Acl rr, saved. providcd thc same are n()l in(ursl ilctll with tho provisions of rhe 2O19 Act. Thc I?u1es, 20I5 are inconsistent with the substantivc prot rsiol ts ol- Se< tion 3 of the 2019 Act. Therefore. thc afrrr,:said Ru r s are no longcr in force. For the alorcment or.rcd reasSn the contentron that the Ordinalcc 3 ol 2C 24 is in r ontravention of Rule 3 of the Rrrlcs 2t-) 5 is ,mis,-r'q1qe1vq!!.

19. lnsofar as another submission madt on b< h,rlI ol' the l)ctitioners thzrt a Constitutional Bocly like ( irarr Palch:rvat cannot be dissolved, sufhce it to say ttrat it.r exer.:isc of powers under Section 3 of thc 20 L9 Act , the limit s o[ a local body cal be altered. Thc r aiiditr r I the afo-,'srJcl Scction is not under challeugt: ut thes€ \\-r'il petitions. Thereforc, it is not necessary lirr us -o dcii wit r tlrt: said contention.

20. Iror the aforementioncd reasons, urr do n tt fitrd anr rncrit in thesc writ pcLitions. The satnr-' lail a n,l :rre hereby clismissed." (Emphasis supplicd) i 1. I r vieu' of foregoing discussion, \\'c arc u titblc to l-rold t rat for not follorving the Rules, Amet-rcln Lcrlt Act <:an be dcr:lzrred as unconstitutional.

12. Thc Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is hcreby dismissed. No costs. I I ,/' 5 Miscellancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed."

5. In view ol the order P Ssed in W.P.No.2943 of 2025 dated

17.04.2025, this u'rit petition is also dismissed' No order as to COSTS To, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD.K.SREERAMA MURTHY EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 One CC to SRI SARASANI RAHUL REDDY, Advoc e IoPUCI 2, rwo CCs to GP FoR GENERAL ADMINISTRATIoN' High Court for the State a of TelangaTa. [OUT]

3. Two C.ds to GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ, High Court for the State of Tela2gana. [OUTI

4. rwi ccs to Gp FOR LAW & LEGTSLATTVE AFFA|RS, High court for the S%te of Telangana. [OUTj

5. Tw;-CCs to GP FoR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. one CC to SRI K'SIDDHARATH REDDY, SC FoR Karimnagar Municipal Corporation. [OPUC]

7. TJ&o-QD CoPies. BSK LS HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.2921 of 2025 I E{" .s I ) *\ \*+ rH+ I + .,'/ l, \ \) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \9 l (n, )rt '"'11 I