Telangana High Court
Sreenex Machines Pvt. Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 649 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action
of the respondents in declaring the petitioners ineligible to participate in
the election notification dated 19.12.2022 schedule to be held on
09.01.2023 is illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and contrary to the
guidelines prescribed in the election notification and consequently direct
the respondents to declare the petitioners as eligible candidates to
participate in the election notification dated 19.12.2022 scheduled to be
held on 09.01.2023 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for petitioners Smt. Jyothi Eswar
Gogineni submits that Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure
Corporation is formed for the purpose of welfare of industrial
estates. It is submitted that the petitioners are members of
Nacharam Notified Municipal Industrial Area Service Society.
The term of the previous committee expired in 2019 and due to
Covid, no election has been conducted. After repeated requests
made by the members of the Society, notification was issued on
19.12.2022 to conduct elections to the Managing Committee
and election schedule was also given. It is submitted that the
2nd petitioner representing the 1st petitioner filed his nomination
on 29.12.2022 for the post of Joint Secretary and the petitioners
came to know that their nomination was rejected. On enquiry,
they came to know that in view of Clause 21 of the election
guidelines, the petitioners' nomination cannot be considered. It
is submitted that as per Clause 21, no Managing Committee
office bearer or member is allowed to contest if he is absent for
more than seven meetings or 35% of the meetings during the
three years of the body whichever is higher. It is submitted that
the said clause do not apply to the petitioners as there is no
body and no meetings were conducted. Therefore, the question
of invoking Clause 21 does not arise.
3. Smt. G.Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel representing
Sri L. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TSIIC
relying on the judgments of this Court in Prathipati Bhagyamma
v. Election Officer, Muppalla Primary Agricultural Co-operative
Society, Guntur District1 and Poloji Veeraiah v. Returning Officer,
Khammam District2 submits that once election process is
commenced by issuing election notification, there is bar to
entertain the Writ Petitions and any disputes arising out of it
have to be decided by the Election Tribunal as per the
jurisdiction conferred in the light of Article 329(b). It is
2005(6) ALD 850
2009(3) ALD 822 (DB)
submitted that whatever be the reason, in view of the law laid
down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court,
petitioners cannot approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. The petitioners have raised several grounds before
this Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing
Counsel, in view of the bar under Article 329(b) of the
Constitution, any disputes arising out of the same shall be tried
by the Election Tribunal and this Court cannot entertain the
Writ Petition.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving
liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues before the
appropriate Election Tribunal. The observations that are made
by this Court are only for the purpose of deciding the issue with
regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition and it will not
come in the way of the petitioners in the Election Petition, if so
filed by the petitioners. No order as to costs.
6. The Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
automatically closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
06th January 2023
ksld
