A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aaradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, on Thursday dismissed the writ petition filed by Patlola Karthik Reddy, challenging the validity of a letter issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding the conduct of byelections for two seats in the Telangana State Legislative Council. The petitioner, who is the national spokesperson of the BRS, contested the ECI’s decision to hold separate bypolls with two separate ballot papers for the vacant seats. The seat fell vacant after Kadiyam Srihari and Padi Kaushik Reddy resigned on December 9, 2023 following their election as MLAs.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, argued that the vacancies should be filled through a single transferable vote as per Article 171(4) of the Constitution of India and Rule 70 of the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961. The petitioner claimed that the press note issued by the ECI on January 4, 2024, violated these constitutional provisions. Avinash Desai, senior counsel for the ECI, asserted that the poll body’s actions were in accordance with Section 151 of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which addresses the filling of casual vacancies. Desai further stated that a notification had been issued by the ECI, scheduling the byelections for January 29.After hearing the arguments of both parties, the bench held that since notification for bypolls had already been issued, the bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India applies, preventing any interference and dismissed the writ petition.
GHMC restrained from laying 25 ft road in Bandlaguda
Justice T Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday issued a restraining order against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), preventing it from proceeding with laying of a 25 ft road in Bandlaguda, Chandrayangutta. Justice Vinod Kumar was hearing a writ petition filed by the Confederation of Voluntary Associations (COVA), an organisation dedicated to promoting communal harmony and peace in South Asia. According to the petitioner, the dispute arose when the COVA initiated the construction of a boundary wall on its property in Bandlaguda. Individuals claiming to be GHMC employees allegedly objected to the construction and issued threats, demanding that COVA leave a specific portion of the land untouched. The petitioner contends that despite numerous representations to the authorities for demarcation of the road, their pleas were ignored.
Senior counsel L Ravichander, representing COVA, argued in court that repeated representations to the civic authorities went in vain, posing a threat to the organisation’s interests as the GHMC was reportedly planning to lay a road on COVA’s land. While expressing disappointment over the authorities not responding to petitioner’s representations, which were being submitted since February 2022, Justice Vinod Kumar directed the GHMC to refrain from proceeding with the laying of the 25 ft. road until the representations of COVA for demarcation are duly considered. The judge also gave civic authorities two weeks to review and address the petitioner’s concerns.