Durgam Ambika v. Rural Development Department

of the writ petition. Cou nsel Counsel Cou nsel Cou nsel Counsel for the for the for the for the for the Petitioner: Ms. M.RAJESWARI Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT tt \J & RURAL DEV Respondent No.2: SRI P.SUDHEER RAO, S I FOR TSEC Respondent Nos.3 & 4: GP FOR REVENUI: Respondent No.5: SRI K.PRADEEP REDD\ SC FOR MPP Counsel for the Respondent No.6: - The Court made the following: ORDER ZPP IN THE IITGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVT DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.39640 oF 202s DATED :23-12.2025 Between: Durgam Ambika AND .. Petitioner The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 5 others ... Respondents ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the action on the parl of 5'h respondent in declaring the 6th respondent as Sarpach of Beebra Gram Panchayat, Dahegaon Mandal, Komaram Bheem Asifa District, without considering the representations dt. I 5. I 2.2025 and

18.12.2025 of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner claims to have made a written complaints dt.15.12.2025 and. 18.12.2025 and the grievance of the petitioner is that the same has not been considered by the official respondents. The .--\ -\ -+{ '' .-..' 2 petitioner is therefore seeking a direction to the officie.l respondents to conduct necessary enquiry and do justice with regard .o one missing vote which is invalid, is declared to be belonging to thr 6th respondent by the 5th respondent and to grant such other relief.

3. According to the leamed counsel for the petitior t r, there has not been any strict adherence to the rules by the authoriti: and therefore, recounting should be directed.

4. The petitioner claims to be one of the contestan:r lor the post of Sarpanch of the concerlted Gram Panchayat and shc I as secured 387 votes as against the successful candidate, i.e., responcLt nt No-6 herein, who also secured 387 r,otes. During counting, it was inf ,rmed by the 5'h respondent that out of'858 votes one vote was missinr4 but after some time, the missing one vote is declared to be belo I ling to the 6th respondent and she was declared as the winner.

5. Leamed Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission as well as the learned Govemment Pleader for Panchayr Raj and Rural Development and learned Standing Counsel for the t rncemed Gram Panchayat are all heard. 3

6. This Court finds that the elections have already been completed and the result ofthe election is declared and thereafter, any dispute with regard to the same has to be raised only in an election petition before the Election Tribunal. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is not maintainable.

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise a dispute on the above issues before the Election Tribunal if she so chooses

8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A,V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER 'l . One CC to Ms. M.RAJESWARI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 4. One CC to SRI P.SUDHEER RAO, SC FOR TSEC [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR I\APP ZPP [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies K. To PS GJP FIIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 ORDER WP.No.39640 of 2025 ,.::- ; -\: .,/'t-(,' i,\ /! t/- l,r li- s :\ r\ S' \ .^ '.1., 1'l - \ittl'' iYliil :" '.'-..'-.,. .),r :+ 6 t: .., ./. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS yO