Palugula Uma Rani v. '-rs! ' rr

Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. smt. Anuradha Dommata, wo Babu,4g.eq go yrs, sarpanch (declared), Vasalamarry Vi nage, Thurka pa tty naaholt, V;a;d ;:e fria n"g iiioiiliiit. " -.r-' ' 7 .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the 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, mofe particularty one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in declaring the 7th respondent as Sarpanch, Vasalamarry Gram panchayath, Thurkapaly Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District by intentionally misplacing a validly polled vote, thereby causing tie in the polling and resorting to a draw of tots and the l,l . tri further inaction in conducting a recount by including the traced misplaced"vote or taking steps for re-polling of Ward No.2 of Vasalamarry Gram Panchayat, pursuant to petitioner's representations dated 15-12- 2025, as being illegat, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 243-0 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the election of Respondent No.7 as Sarpanch of Vasalamarry Gram Panchayat with a further direction to the official respondents to recount the votes of Ward No.2 by including the traced valid ballot bearing No. A-038321 or in the alternative, direct the official respondents to conduct re-polling for Ward No.2 of Vasalamarry GP and declare the result of the Sarpanch, Vasalamarry Gram Panchayat accordingly. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to proceed further with the swearing-in of the 7th respondent as Sarpanch of Vasalamarry Gram Panchayat, Thurkapally Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, scheduled on 20-1 2-2025. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Resporident Nos.2 & 4 to 6 : SRI P.SUDHEER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : G.P FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.7 : -- The Court made the following ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI N DATE: t8.12.2O25 OF Between: Palugula Uma Rani The State of Telangana & 6 others AND ORDER: .Petitioner .Respondents In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenglng the action of the respondents No.2 to 6 in declaring the 7tr, respondent as sarpanch, vasalmarry Gram panchayat, Thurkapally Mandar, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, though there was a balrot 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 t].at in ward No.2, total 119 were counted for the post of ward member whereas for the post of sarpanch 11g votes only were counted'. It is submitted that though an objection was raised on at. : -: --.€','' ,,,---{ .',: -..: i , I I { : ' 2 I the next day by the petitioner and others that a ballot paper was found at the widow of the counting halr, the same was not taken into consideration and no action has been taken thereon. 3' Learned counser for the petitioner reried on Rule 56 Telangana Panchayat Raj (conduct of Election) Rules, 1961 to submit that where there is any issue regarding balrot paper, i.e, either of missing or damage, the Returning officer has to report the sarne to the state Election commission, who shail take decision thereon under section 23L 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 Erection commission and has taken a decision himserf and declared 7th respondent as sarpanch and thus acted contrary to the Rures. Therefore, he prayed that a direction be given to the respondents to re-count the votes or to conduct elections afresh. 4' Learned senior counser appearing for state Election commission submitted that counting was done in accordance with the proced.ure 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 .. ti 3 contesting candidates demanded for recounting and as per the demand, alt 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 243-0 of the Constitution of India as under:- I : It a I n243O. Bur to interference by courts in electoral matters No tw it hs tandtng anyt hing i n t h is C o ns t i tu t i o n- (g) the validity of any law relating to the deltmitation of constttuencies or the allotment, of seals to such conslituencies made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in questton in any court; ft) 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 providedfor by or under any Law made by the legislature of a State." 4 r1

6. In view of the ,sarne, 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. //TRUE COPY/ sD/-M. ANT To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RU Court for the State of Telangana at 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, H 3. One CC to 4. One CC to SRI P.SUDHEER RAO, rsEc (oPUC) 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad .[our] SRI P. LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate [OPucl SECTION OFFICER DEVELOPMENT, High of Telangana at SA wBS ., ,tits r ;li,,' . rr.i- .l,i,i4'- '. , ,;,ri+lli; O4 ll.lh- SX4 C] ,. r o 23 otc Zm * "<J J, -53r ti-:n HIGH COURT DATED i1811212025 ORDER WP.No.39009 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT GOSTS 4dpL %n'y3\', 4atllL;, . i*#+ 1\ , '.:.:. i.:. :.i