HYDERABAD: The vacation bench of the AP High Court consisting of Justice G Raghuram and Justice Naushaad Ali on Tuesday admitted a writ petition questioning the Government order of September 11, upgrading Gram Panchayats as Nagar Panchayats.
The AP Major Gram Panchayats Association and 39 sarpanches moved the court questioning the action of the Government in amending Rule 2 of the AP Transitional Area and Smaller Urban Areas (Fixation of Criteria) Rules, 1995 as violative of Article 243-E of the Constitution and Section 14 (3) of the Panchayat Act, which guaranteed assured term of five years, apart from contrary to Section 2 (42-a) of the Municipalities Act. Senior Counsel S Ramachandra Rao pointed out that the Government Order had the effect of curtailing the assured term of the Gram Panchayat and its functionaries.
He also argued that all the gram panchayats passed unanimous resolutions rejecting their proposed upgradations as Nagar Panchayats and the information furnished by them showed that the gram panchayats concerned do not satisfy the criteria fixed by the Municipalities Act.
Rao further said that in the State majority of gram panchayats are being held by TDP activists even though the elections are not on party lines. The ruling party, he alleged wanted to dissolve the gram panchayats in the name of upgradation, thereby wanted an unfair edge in the ensuing election to local bodies.
Status quo on construction of St Thomas Church
The High Court on Tuesday directed the maintenance of status quo of the ongoing construction of the St.Thomas Church in front of the Secunderabad Railway Station. The order came to be passed in a writ appeal filed by the Church of South India Association, Vimal Sukumar and Mantri Solomon.
Earlier they unsuccessfully questioned a permit granted by the Grater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on Oct 16 for construction at the site of the church which is over 100 years and was created under a Royal charter of 1701. Two linguistic groups are engaged in a legal battle on the ownership and management of the church. A single judge dismissed the writ petition after observing that while it is the duty of the corporation to verify the title, it would not go into the question of title as in a civil suit.
The single judge also found that in any event by the said construction the community would be benefited.
The bench directed the GHMC to consider the objections filed by the petitioner in two weeks and in the interregnum directed the maintenance of status quo.