The High Court · 2025

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articre 226 ot rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction preferabry writ of Mandamus declaring the 100 percentage reservation of Grampanchayath Sarpanch posts in schedule area of Telangana is unconstitutional' namely against Article -14 and 15 of Constitution of lndia and contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in Chebrolu Leela Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh' in the interest of justice' I.A.N O:1 OF 2025 petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated- in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High Gourt may be pleased to direct the respondents No'1 2 and 6 not to issue election Notification with regard to Grampanchayath Sarpanch posts of schedule area of Telangana reserving 100% to the schedule tribes' otheMise direct the respondents stay the elections of Grampanchayaths in schedule area of Telanagana' in the interest of justlce' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S'RAMANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No'2 : Ms' SHAZIA PARVEEN' GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent Nos'3 & 4 : SRI A'RAVINDER' GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No'5 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No'6 : SRI P'SUDHEER RAO The Court made the following ORDER / TIIE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.M OHII'DDIN KI]MAR SINGII ORDER: Writ Petition No.4454 of 2O25 Heard Ms.Sureddy priyanka, learned counsel appearing for Mr.S.Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Shazia parveen, learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.Ananthula Ravinder, learned Government pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondents No.3 and 4.

2. The writ petition has been preferred in individua_l capacity by a Non-Tribal Welfare Societ5r seeking to declare 1000% reservation of Gram panchayat Sarpanch posts in Schedule Area of Telalgana as unconstitutional and contrary to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Chebrolu Leela prasad Rao v. State ofAndhra pradeshr.

3. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the elections to Gram Panchayat are likely to be held without , I ' lzozt; t I scc +or 2 :.

1. re-organisation of the Scheduled Areas specifrcally in the Districts of Adilabad' Khammam' Warangal and Mahabubnagar' No notification for such election has been issued or brought on record' Petitioner has placed reliance upon a communication' uide letter dated 25'O2'2O15 addressed by the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare to the DistrictCollector,Khammam,whereintheattentionofthe District Collector has been invited for submission of a proposal in revised form in English and Hindi for taking necessary action for rationalisation of Scheduled Areas by making Scheduled Areas Co-terminus with the Tribal Sub- Plan Areas as was submitted to the Government of India before bifurcation of the State'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehementlY argued that most of the areas falling in the District have only 20% of Tribal population arrd as such' 100% reservationwithregardtoSarpanchisnotproperunder the Constitution

5. l,earned counsel for respondent No'2 - State has frled acounter-affrdavit.ShehasrelieduponadecisionofaCo- I i I I I I I I I I t l I I ! i I 3 ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in W.A.Nos.743 and 744 of 2Ol4 and an analogous appea_l, uzdejudgment dated 05.07.2023. She submits that similar issue was earlier raised before the learned writ court which refused to entertain such plea. It is submitted that the learned Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that the regulations which have remained for the last 50 years have the force of raw as per Article 13 of the constitution of India and it is for the advantage of the Triba_ls. The law made prior to adoption of the constitution is enforceable even after adoption of the Constitution, unless the competent legislature has amended the existing law to cater to the needs of the Triba,l Communit5r. It is submitted that the learned Division Bench therefore did not find any fault with the frndings of the learned Single Judge in upholding the action of the respondents in treating the Mangapet Maldai of Waranga_l District as Scheduled Area and in reserving all offrces of the Gram panchayat therein in favour of the Scheduled Tribes. The learned Division Bench also placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex 4 Court in the case of Union of India v' Rakesh Kumar2' She therefore submits that the instant writ petition could not be entertained.

6. Upon consideration of rival submissions of the parties and limited facts which are required to be taken note of, we are of the considered view that there being no notihcation for holding election to the Gram Panchayat in the a-foresaid Districts, the writ petition is not fit to be entertained. Therefore, we do not'wish to make anY observations as regards the plea on merits raised by the petitioner The instant Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed' There sha,ll be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications pending' if any' sha1l stald closed. 2(2010) 4 Scc 50 //TRUE COPY// SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR Aq$ ! ECTION OFFICER ( i Hvderabad. [OUT] of Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] 'o ,, . ,*o ccs to Gp FoR GENERALADM;N15TRATI6N, f{igh Court for the State 2. Two CCs to Gp FOFiriEvENuE, higrr court for the state of Telangana at e. ii;,"ctJi" 6Crbn PANCHAYAT RAJ, High court forthe state of 4. i;;'ic;i;ciFon socinL wElrnlnr. High court for the state of 5. o;;'ic' i; siii's. nnrvrnun REDDY, AdvocatefoPUCl ;. 5;; cc i; sRi F.suouren RAo, Advocate (oPUC) 7. Two CD CoPies Telanqana at HYderabad. [OUTI Telanqana at HYderabad. [OUTI M SA i5 ..,._\' .'/ ',// 24 fiP 20fr ,. ,z !)FS -:-2-' HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 ORDER WP.No.4454 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 17 ^ l I I i I I ! I I { I 1 i t I I 6 : t i