G.Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Judgment date: 2024-12-05

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-12-05. G.Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

a [ 341E ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR PRESENT ALOK ARADHE THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO:251 94 25566 2668 0 & 28390 0F 2024 W. P. No. 251940F 2024 Between: '1. T. Siddaiah, s/o. Balraj, Aged about 45 vears. occ. Aqriculture, R/o. H. No. 1-illandal, Ranga ReddY 4712, Ghansimiaguda Gram Panchayat, Shamihabad District 32 years, occ' Agriculture, Rl/o'H'No 1- 2. J. Anand, s/o. J. Narsimha, Aqed about shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddv ;? ii, bi;;fi"iJoi ciim-Cirrc. nivat' District ... PETITIONERS AND Govt' General The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal 1. -Sec-1e]a1y^to Hyderabad' nciministiition Depaiment Sebretariat, 500 022 2. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary t9 99v1 ,nl-'ryiq1l Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretaflat, HyoeraDao 500 022 3.

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt Panchayat nai ano iiuiar oeveiopmi:nt-depa'rtrnent, Setretariat, Hyderabad 500 022 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary to 4. The Qo. vt.. Lgqg!. 4f? f; islative Affairs anii Justice, Law Department, Secretariat, HyoeraDao cuu Leg o22 5. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Kongarakalan Village' - 501510 lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District Rep. by its Commissioner Sharnshabad' 6. The Shamshabad Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. Mandal, Ranga Reddy 7 The Ghansimiaguda Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad District Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary ... RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus to decrare the action of fourth respondent in issuing impugned ordinance No'3t2024, dated 02. 0g.

20 24 under Articre 348 of constitution of rndia seeking to merge the Ghansimiaguda panchayat Gram of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with Shamshabad Municipality as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutionar, viorative of Rure 3 0f p. A. Municiparities (rncrusion or Excrusion of Areas into/from the jurisdiction of the Municiparities/Nagara panchayat) Rures, 2015 and set aside the same. IA NO ;10F 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of impugned ordinance No. 3t2024, dated 02. 09. 2024 issued by the 4th Respondent. Counsel for the petitioners : SRI S. SAryAM REDDY, rep. , SRt SARASANT RAHUL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. l : Gp FOR GENERAL ADMINiSTRATION Counset for the Respondent No. 2 : Gp FOR MA & UD COUNSCT fOr thE RESPONdENT NO. 3 : GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ & RURAL DEV COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NO.

4 : GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 : Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No. 6 : SRI LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, SC FOR MC Counsel for the Respondents No. 7 :SRl p. KISHORE RAO, SC FOR Gp I I I I lri ti t,l W. P. No. 2556 60F 2024 Between: 1. W/o G. _G. Padmavathi, Anantha Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ. Ex_sarpanch, H. f! o.! a3, Chinna Gotcondi flo, . vitt'agd, stram'snioio- lrrrantaf Reddy District. 2. Kamonibai Laxmaiah, S/o. Late. Narsimha Aged about 52 years, Sarpanch R:/o. Pedda Gotkonda, Shimshabad"ManOai, nanga ReAiybiiiricr 3. Vattela sathish, s/o-V. Na. rsimha years, Aged about 4s occ. Ex-sarpanch, R/o. Hameeduttahnagar Viilage, Sharishabad Mandar, na-rigi R;eiDiitrilt. ' 4. KSujatha, Wo. K. Venkatesh Aqed about 45 years. Occ. Ex-Samanch Rl/o. Bahadurguda Viltage Shamshibad Mandal, nanga nddayDisfict 5. Mancherla Rani, Wo. Ravi Aged years, about 40 Occ. Ex-saroanch R/o. Rasheedguda Shamshabad'-lvlanda l, Ra nga Reddy bistrict ...

PETITlONERS AND 1 S-tgtq. of Telangana_, Rep. principal by its lle . Secretary, Administration Department Secretbriat, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary to Government, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Law Department. 3 T,he. State of Rep by its principal Secretary . Telangana, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretaridt, Hyierabad. 4 The Director, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Telangan'a State. 5. The District Panchayat Office, Ranga Reddy District. 6. The Mandal Development Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga District. 7. The Mandal Panchayat Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8. T! 1e Cgamissioner,_The. Greater. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, office at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the of Writ of Mandamus action of the Respondent No. 2 herein in promulgating Telangana ordinance No. 3 of 2024 seeking to amend {he schedule to Telangana Municipalities Act. 2019 to merge 51 Gram panchayats into their respective municipalities as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,21 aN of the Constitution of lndia. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the impugned Telangana Ordinance No. 3 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VIJAY ASHRIT, rep. , SRI VEROSE SANJANA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.

2 : GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent No. 3&4 : Gp FOR MA & UD Counsel for the Respondent No. S : GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ Counsel for the Respondents No. 6&7:SRl P. KISHORE RAO, SC FOR GP Counsel for the Respondents No. 8 : SRt M. ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC W. P. NO: 26680 OF 2024 Between: 1. Kaitpaka Yadaiah, S/o. K. Yellaiah, aged 37 yrs. , Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 1-78, Tharamathipet Village, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana- 2 Manchireddy Prashanth Kumar Reddy, S/o. M. Kishan Reddy, aqed 40 yrs. , Occ. Busine'ss. Rl/o. H. No. 2-1 15, Yeliriiinedu Village, lbrahimfuatn-am MariOal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. State. of Tel? llggna, Rep. b. y its. Secretary to Government, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Law Dep6rtment, Secretariat, llyderabad. 3. State of Telangana, Rep.

by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. State of Telangana, Rep, by its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad. ... 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 of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in promulgating Telangana ordinance No. 3 il of 2024 to amend the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 published in The Telangana Gazette Part lV-B Extraordinary dated 02-09-2024 as illegal, arbr'trary and unconstitutional and quash the same. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 pleased to grant lnterim Suspension of Telangana Ordinance No.

3 of 2O24 to amend the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 published in The Telangana Gazette Part lV-B Extrao rd ina ry dated 02-09 -2024. counserrorthePetition"''r1T1,";So#'^i*T'""dffi "J;. ,*oro", Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFATRS Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : GP FOR MA & UD Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : GP FOR PACHAYATH RAJU & RURAL DEV W. P. No. 28390 OF 2024 Between: '1. Mukka Mahendar, S/o M. Yadaiah, Aged 34 years, Occ. Ex-Ward Member, R/o Rampally Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana - 501301. 2. Kandadi Srinivas Reddy, S/o K. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 46 Years, Occ. Ex-Dy. Sarpanch R/o. Rampally Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Telangana-501 301. 3. Gang! Mallesh, S/o G. Gangaiah, Aged about 46 Years, Occ. Ex-Sarpanch, R/o.

Rampally Dayara Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana-501301. 4. Gandu Lalaiah, S/o G. Pochaiah, Aged about 47 Years, Occ. Business, R:/o. Rampally Dayara Village,Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana-501301. 5. Janagam Mahendra Bhupathi, S/o J. Subash, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Bogaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana-501 301 . 6. Boini Rambabu, S/o B. Venkataiah, Aged About 34 years,Occ. Pvt. Emp loyee, R/o. Yadgarpally Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana-501301. i 7. Kowkuntla Srikanth Red_dy, ) S/o K. Sanjeeva Reddy, Aged About 40 years. fl:i*:iu,,i['3''? ,f,"tS:";r*lgaitoo;i;Hfitds;'ii6';#;'-M;"'dir,lil"lEfiii: 8. Siliveri Sudarshan. S/o S. Vijaya Rao, Aged About 55 years, Occ. Ex. Ward Member, RIo. Ramoallv v"" Villase, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-M;ikajsi; iil;i;i;i't;ffis;il156'it0'f '3["[:'s. ]#'{iii*n3^,h*f, flii1ifi li,f;%ii;'*""[,:'Jff I:i"f :i,? il'"1 10. S.

Bhoopal Reddv. S/o S. Sathi Reddy, Aged About 4t years Occ. Business. vilrase' Keesa "El;ti; ra-' tr,ta"noi r,'- Gott'ir:M;Id;i;i fi? ;. n*g:ifiT,' .. ,PETITIONERS AND 1. U&rtj? l". {-:? f:aen. HSJ"i:",. *? :", jiordfffo1n,"n,orLegarArrairs, 2 The State of Telanoana principal Oy its Bgp, Secretary, Department MunicipatAdministraiion of ino u? o#odi"i"';;". 1ifi, *=Jretariat, Hyderabad. 3 and Urban Deveropment (MA) 5! ["P*Hfi"iyil:? Bi,113'ninistration - 4 The Diskict Panchayat Officer, Medchal_Malkajgiri Diskict. 5. The Mandal parishad Development Officer, Keesara Mandal, Medchal_ Malkajgiri District. 6 The Mandal Panchayat Officer, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f 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, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the ordinance No. 312024 dt. 2. 9.

2024 issued by the 1st respondent as unconstitutional and violative of constitutional mandate AS guaranteed under part-rX of constitution of rndia read with section-3 sub_section (3) of Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 2018. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned ordinance No. 3l2O24 d1. 2. 9. 2024 issued by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PUSA MALLESH Counsel for the Respondent No. { : GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Counsel for the Respondent No. 2&3 : GP FOR MA & UD Counsel for the Respondents No. 4to6: GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER a THE HON' B LE TH ECH IEF JUSTICE ALOK ARAD HE AND THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO W. P. Nos. 25194 , 2556 6,2668O and 2839O of 2024 COMMON ORDER : (Per tlLe Hon,ble tLLe Chief Justice AIok _4radhe) Mr. S.

Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sarasani Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. p. No. 25 I94 of 2024 and, Mr. pusa Mallesh, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. P. No. 2839O of 2024. Mr. Vliay Ashrit, learned counsel representing Ms. Verose Salja:na, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. P. No. 25566 of 2024. Mr. C. Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Chennaboina Shravani, learned counsel for the petitioners in W. p. No. 26 6g0 of 2024. Mr. A. Sudarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the State. / Mr. Kandhyala Partha Saradhi, learned counsel representing Mr. Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 7 in W. P. No. 25l94 of 2024, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in W. P. No. 25566 of 2024, respondent Nos. S and 6 in W. P. No. 2839O of 2024. Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani, leamed Standing Counsel for Municipalities for respondent No. 6 in W. P. No. 2S194 of 2024. Mr.

Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for respondent No. 8 in W. P. No. 25566 of 2024. 2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are heard finally. 3. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of Ordinance No. 3 of 2024 dated O2. O9. 2O24, by which the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (hereinaJter referred to as 'the 2Ot9 Act) has been amended. A common issue with regard to validity of the aforesaid Ordinance arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. Therefore]tfese writ petitions were heard n analogousll. and are being decided by this common order. For the facility of reference, facts in W. p. No. 25l94 of 2024 are being referred to. 4. The petitioners, two in number, are residents of Ghansimiaguda Gram panchayat, Shamshabad Maldal, Ranga Reddy District. An Ordinance namely Telangana Ordinance No.

3 of 2024 was issued by the Governor to amend the 2019 Act. By the said Ordinance, 5l Gram Pa,chayats were sought to be incruded in various Urba, Local Bodies situated in Ranga Reddy, Medchal_Malkajgiri artd Salga Reddy Districts. 5. According to the petitioners, the Ghansimiaguda panchayat Gram came into existence in the year 1985 and is located at a distance of 7 kilometers from Shamshabad Municipality. The principal ground of attack to the Ordinance as averred in the writ petition is that the same is in violation of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/from the jurisdiction of the Municipalities/Nagara Panchayat) Rules, 2O 15 (hereinafter . the referred to as I I i L Rules, 2015) framed in exercise of powers under Section 326(1) read with proviso to Section 3(1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Act').

It is averred that the residents of the Gram Panchayat have not been consulted while including the Gram Panchayat into the Urban Local Body' In the aforesaid factual background, this writ petition has been Iiled. 6. Mr. S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in W. P. Nos'25194 of 2024 and is in 283gO of 2024 submits that the impugned Ordinance violation of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2015 and the Gram Panchayat is sought to be inciuded without consultation of the villagers. It is further submitted that the aforesaid Rules, 2O15 continue to exist and are in force' Therefore' the impugned Ordinance is liable to be struck down' 7. Mr. C.

Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners in W'P'No'2668O of 2024 exist which render it submitted that no circumstances necessary for the Governor to take an irnmediate action ) a under Article 213 of the Constitution of India by issuing al Ordinance and therefore, the impugrred ordinarrce is liable to be struck down on this ground alone. 8. Mr. Vrjay Ashrit, learned counsel representing the petitioners in W. p. No. 2SS66 of 2O24submitted that the impugned Ordinance constitutes an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as a constitutiona_l body namely the Gram panchayat is said to be dissolved. 9. On the other hand, Iearned Advocate General has submitted that the Rules, 2015 have ceased to exist as the 1965 Act has been repealed ald the Shte Legislature has enacted the 2Ol9 Act.

It is further submitted that under Section 3(2) of the 2019 Act, the State Legislature has the power to anrend Schedule I and Schedule II as specified in the 2019 Act and therefore, t]le State Legislature has power to include the Gram panchayats into Urban Local Bodies by expanding the area thereof. 10. It is submitted that the Ordinance has been enacted with the object to provide suitable administrative requirement of structure in with the commensuration of 51 urban growth. the term It is further submitted that atd Gram Panchayats has come to an end on O1'O2'2024 to be held' elections for local bodies are required has Therefore, the Ordinance was enacted. Our attention been invited to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the counter and it has been contended that the powers under Article 213 of the Constitution of India have rightly been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case' on 11. We have considered the submissions made both sides and have perused the record' 12.

Article 213 of the Constitution of India confers power on the Governor to promulgate an Ordinance' The power under Article 213 of the Constitution of India is co-extensive with the power of the Assembly to make laws and is envisioned' only to enable the Executive to tide over in emergent situation which may arise' The legislative power of the Governor can be utilized to enact an amend the laws' Ordinance, to alter or a 13. It is pertinent to note that the satisfaction contemplated by Article 213 of the Constitution of India is not the personal satisfaction of the Governor, brrt of his Council of Ministers on whose advice he is to ,1ct as a constitutional head. The Ordinance has been enac:ted with an object to provide a suitable administrative strur:ture for the entire region up to Outer Ring Road/overlapping Outer Ring Road and areas near to Outer Ring Road which are having similar urban growth perspective.

From perusal of the averments made in the counter, it is evident that a study was conducted by the Administrative StaII College of India, Hyderabad, to suggest suitable administrative structure artd suitable urban governance pattern. On the basis of the report submitted by the Administrative staff College of India as well as the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, which in turn was based on the recommendations of the District Officers Committee, merger of the panchayats Gram situate within the Outer Ring Road/overlapping outer Ring Road/areas nearer to the outer Ring Road was suggested. The term of the Gram Panchayats had come to an end on 01. 02. 2O24 and. the I ; I elections to the urban local bodies were due. For the aforementioned reasons as well as the reasons assigned in paragraph 4 of the counter, in our opinion, the action of invocation of Article 213 of the Constitution of India is justihed in the facts and circumstances of the case. il 14.

Now we may examine whether the impugned Ordinance has been issued in yiolation of Rule 3 of the Rules,2015 15. The 1965 Act iS an act enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to municipalities in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 326(1) read with proviso to Section 3(1-A) of the 1965 Act, the State Government had framed the Rules, 2O 15. The aforesaid Rules prescribe the procedure to be followed in case of inclusion/exclusion of a-reas into/frorn the limits of Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats. The 1965 Act was repealed with effect from O9. lO. 2Ol9 and the 2019 Act was enacted by the State Legislature. Chapter-Il of the 2OL9 Act deals with constitution and composition of the Municipalities. Section i o 3 of the 2OI9 Act, which is relevant for the purposes of controversy involved in this petition, is extracted below for the facility of reference: "3.

ConsHtuHooofMunicipalities:_ (1) The Municipality shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. It can sue or be sued in its corporate name, acquire, hold and tra. sfer property, enter into contracts and do all things which are necessa-ry, proper or expedient for which it is constituterl. (2) F. rom the date of commencement of this Act, al1 the Municipalities constituted under the Telargana Municipatities Act, 1965 (Act 6 of f96S) and the Municrpal Corporations constituted under Telalgana Municipal Corporations Act,l994 (Act 25 of 1994) shall be deemed to have been constituted as Municipal councils as specified in schedule t ,,,a uuri"i corporations as specirred in schedule II under ,hi" lPd sha, appry ,. * ",";";;:",H,:::-X;,:i,H";"j deemed to have been constituted under this Act: provided that in r aJreadynotined. ""r,*:;;,T:T. :. "Jil.

"fl ::"JI: MunicipaJities Act, i965, the elected body of such Gram Panchayat shall continue to be in existence until its term expires ancl exercise a_ll s or the reransan" ,",Ji#jT_:. ;:1 ; ",. "n#l;ff of 2O18), ald on such date of expiry, it shal be deemed to have been constituted as a (3) rhestate*,,r,*Il,;,'#:;l1LT',"#:,,,,, this Act, modi$ or add or altg schedule I or U of this act so as to,- - ::10:: (a) of local atea from forrn a new Municipality by separation more local areas or any Municipality, or by uniting two or part of local area to a part of areas, or by uniting any Municipality; (b) include within a Municipality any locd area; (c) exclude from a Municipality, any area comprised therein; (d) constitute any local area as a Municipality; (e) alter tJ'e name of arry Municipality; revise t}re boundary of municipal area; {f) (g) describe the boundaries of the Municipality; (h) abolish a MuniciPality. " Section 3(2) of the 2019 Act, it 16.

From perusal of to amend Schedule I and is evident that the power Schedule II has been conferred on the State l'egislature' Thus, substantive power to alter the limits of the local bodies has been conferred under the 2019 Act itself' 17. Section 299 of the 2019 Act, which deals with Repeal and savings, reads as under: . 299. Repeal aad. saviags:- (1) On arrd from the corlmencement of this Act, the Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 (act No. 6 of 1965) and the Telangana Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 (Act 25 of 19941 arc repealed' (21 On such repeal, the provisions of Sections 8 arrd 18 :: l1:: of the Telangana General Clauses Act, 1g91, shall apply, provided that on such repeal, rules or provisions exrstung are not. inconsistent with this Act.

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Acts referred in sub-section (l) the appointment, notification, order, scheme, form, notice, rule, or byeJaw, made or issued, and license or permission granted under the Acts, shal, in so far as it is not inconsistent with tJle provisions of this Act, shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made, issued or granted under the provisions of this Act, unless it is lapsed or superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, form, notice, rule or bye-law made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the said provisions.

l4l The members of any Council and Corporation holding office at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been elected as members of that Councrl ard Corporation under this Act, and subject to provisions of Section IO, continue to hold ollice of members until the expiration of their term under tJre provisions which were applicable to them immediately before such commencement, (5) Any division of the Municipality into wards, made or deemed to have been made under ttte Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 or Telangana Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 and in force at the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be the division of t'I. e Municipality into wards mad. e under this Act; and the members representing the wards shall, subject to the provisions under sub-secti, rhem on and rrom *". "J;:::. :: fil:il:. represent . zl2:i 18.

Thus, from perusal of Section 299 of the 2019 Act, it is evident that the Rules framed under the 1965 Act are saved, provided the same are not inconsistent with the provisions of the 2Ol9 Act. The Ru1es, 2OI5 are inconsistent with the substantive provisions of Section 3 of the 2O19 Act. Therefore, the aforesaid Rules are no longer in force. For the aforementioned reason, the contention that the Ordinance 3 of 2024 is in contravention of Rule 3 of the Rules 2015 is misconceived L9. Insofar as another submission made on behalf of the petitioners that a Constitutional Body like Gram Panchayat calnot be dissolved, suffice it to say that in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the 2O19 Act, the limits of a local body can be altered. The validity of the aforesaid Section is not under challenge in these writ petitions. Therefore, it is not necessarJr' for us to deal with the said contention. we do not find 20. For the aforementioned reasons, any merit in these writ petitions.

The same fail and are hereby dismissed. :: 13: : Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGITIRAR //rRUE copy// sEcnoN 3#r". */ o \ 1. One CC to SRt SARASANT RAHUL REDDY, Advocate. tOpUCl 2. One CC to Ms. VEROSE SANJANA, Advocate. tOpUCI 3. One CC to Ms. CHENNABO|NA SHRAVAN|, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRt PUSA MALLESH, Advocate. tOpUCI 5 Tw-o ccs to GP FoR GENERAL ADMrNrsrRATroN, High - court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. IOU- 6 Two ccs to GP FoR REVENUE, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. ccs. to GP for Municipal lwo Administration and Urban Deveropment. ev' -- vrv'"r ri' Hioh r Court for the State of Telanjana "vr "'Yr ai nyoeri'oaO. -fOUrf B' Two ccs to GP FoR LAW L-EG. rsLATrvE AFFATRS, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 9. ccs to GP FoR pANcHAyATH lwo RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT. r!

rL' I , Hioh Court for the State of Tetangana af nyA'eiaOid. 'i '| "Y' ' to-dn 'l0. One CC to SRt P. K|SHORE RAO, SC FOR Gp,Mp,Zp. [OPUCl 1 1 . One CC to SRt M. ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC. [OPUC] 12. One CC to SRt LAXMATAH KANCHAN|, SC FOR GHMC. tOpUCl 13. Two CD Copies. BSK BS i a HIGH COURT DATED:05112t2024 9TA rE o 9 g r nf ltir a ,,"u I $\ + A ) * o 2r COMMON ORDER WP. Nos. 25194,25566, 26680 & 28390 OF ZO24 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS pA lt

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.