[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
The Telangana State Election ... vs Ms Chinthamalla Kalpana on 2 December, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD.
****
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 1371 of 2025
DATE : 02-12-2025
Between :
The Telangana State Election Commission,
Rep. by the Commissioner ... Appellant/
Respondent No.2
And
1. Ms.Chinthamalla Kalpana, D/o.Gopal Dharavah
and seven others ... Respondents.
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)
Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
P.Sudheer Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State Election
Commission, Sri T.P.S.Harsha, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 8/ Election Commission of India.
2. The Appeal arises out of an interim order dated 28.11.2025 passed
by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36510 of 2025 directing to consider
the name of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing Elections
to Indugula Village and Gram Panchayat with a finding that her name has
to be included in the Electoral Rolls of the Gram Panchayat concerned.
3. The Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition by way of Lunch Motion
seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not including the name
of the Writ Petitioner in the Electoral Rolls (Voters List) of Indugula
village, Madugulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District which is reserved for ST
Category, as illegal.
4. The learned Single Judge considering the issue primarily held that
since the petitioner's name is appearing in the list of Election Commission
of India as resident of concerned Gram Panchayat before the date of
Election Notification, her name has to be included in the Electoral Rolls of
the concerned Gram Panchayat, thereby directed the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner in participating in the ensuing Elections.
5. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, kearned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Telangana State Election Commission contends that the order passed by
the learned Single Judge is contrary to Section 11 of The Telangana
Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short 'The Act') as the Electoral Roll for the
Gram Panchayat shall be with reference to the qualifying date as may be
prescribed by the State Election Commission. The State Election
Commission notified 01.07.2025 as the qualifying date vide its
Notification dated 26.08.2025 whereas sub-Section (3) of section 11 of the
Act, 2018 specifies that the Electoral Rolls published shall remain in force
till fresh Electoral Rolls are published.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further contented that the Electoral Roll of
the concerned Assembly Constituencies made by the Electoral Registration
Officer will not be part of Electoral Roll of the Gram Panchayat unless it is
notified under the Act. Therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge
ought not to have directed the respondents in the Writ Petition to consider
the case of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing elections
without her name included in the Electoral Rolls of the Gram Panchayat,
and prays to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
7. Sri T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1
contends that the name of the Writ Petitioner is reflecting as a voter of the
Village. In the Election Commission of India Identity card which is
specifically showing the address as 'H.No.4-16, Indugula village,
Madugulapalli, Nalgonda', and the Track Application, which is submitted
on 06.11.2025 duly accepted on 13.11.2025, reflecting the name of the
Writ Petitioner as voter of the said Village.
8. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner further contended that
the order passed by the learned Single Judge is only an interim order
directing to consider the case of the Writ petitioner for participating in the
ensuing elections and that the various new contentions raised by the
Appellant can be gone into at the time of final hearing of the Writ Petition.
9. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent No.8/Election Commission of India contended that the name of
the Writ Petitioner was found place in the Electoral List on 13.11.2025 and
further contended that the Election process is a continuous process which
requires daily updation and there is no privity to inform the same to the
State Election Commission.
10. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised by
the parties.
11. Since, the Writ Appeal is filed against the order of a learned Single
Judge passed in an Interlocutory Application, which is returnable on
29.12.2025. As such, no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the
Appellants if the election goes on and in the event the of Writ Petitioner
winning or losing the election, appropriate remedies are available under
law.
12. Further, no illegality or perversity can be found in the order by the
learned Single Judge for interfering with the interim orders. However, we
have not gone into the merits of the case which can be adjudicated by way
of regular hearing of the Writ Petition. Since the impugned order is
Interlocutory in nature, and the Writ Petition is not yet disposed of, no
irreparable loss will be caused to the appellant.
13. On the other hand, the impugned order directing to consider the case
of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing election does not
amount to interference of Election process. We are also mindful of the law
settled on the subject. However, our only concern is that democratic
process of the election should be upheld.
14. The integrity of the democratic process rests upon the conduct of
free, fair, transparent, and timely elections. It is the solemn duty of all
Institutions and stakeholders to safeguard this process by ensuring that
voters may exercise their franchise freely, without fear, coercion or undue
influence, and that all participants in the electoral contest are able to
campaign and compete on an equal and unhindered footing.
15. Further, the maintainability of the Writ Appeal against an Interim
order must be tested against whether the order significantly affects the
rights or causes irreversible consequences. If the Interim Order granted
matches the prayer, dissatisfaction with its scope or duration, does not
justify an Appeal unless substantial legal prejudice is demonstrated.
16. Therefore, apart from the above contentions, the Appellant is at
liberty to file an appropriate Application before the learned Single Judge.
In such an event, we request the learned Single Judge to take up the matter
on priority basis.
17. In view of the observations, we do not find any merit in the Appeal
and it is accordingly dismissed.
18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
___________________________
GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date: 02.12.2025
Vsv
