HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Monday declined to grant interim relief to petitioners challenging the delimitation and merger of GHMC wards.
Around 80 writ petitions questioning various aspects of the ward delimitation exercise were moved by way of a lunch motion. The petitioners relied on an earlier single judge order directing the state to place ward-wise population data and maps in the public domain within 24 hours and permitting additional objections within two days. That order was later modified by a bench, which confined liberty to approach the court only to the concerned petitioners.
Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, citing Article 243ZG of the Constitution, which bars judicial interference in electoral matters, including ward delimitation. Entertaining the petitions at this stage, he argued, would be constitutionally impermissible.
Article 243ZG not absolute, petitioners argue in court
Senior counsel for the petitioners countered that the bar under Article 243ZG was not absolute. Citing Supreme Court judgments, he argued that judicial review was permissible where the process was arbitrary or illegal, and that denial of access to the court would leave citizens without an effective remedy. Senior counsel J Prabhakar submitted that appeals had been filed only in two cases and that orders in the remaining petitions continued to operate.
Opposing the pleas, the AG told the court that over 5,000 objections had been received and considered in accordance with the rules. He said the exercise under Rule 10(1) to Rule 10(5) was complete and the final report had been sent to the government for approval. Court intervention at this stage, he submitted, would disrupt the process.
Senior counsel L Ravichander referred to Rule 8, which provides a seven-day window for objections, and argued that the timeline was directory and could not be used to reject the petitions.
After hearing both sides, Justice Vijaysen Reddy noted that the objection period had expired and that only governmental approval remained. He held that the balance of convenience lay with the respondents.