M Madhusudan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 6343 Tel

Telangana High Court

M Madhusudan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 7 November, 2025

Author: K.Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
                          AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

                           W.A. No.1221 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman)

Heard Sri Rajkumar Gummi, learned counsel for the

appellant, learned Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration for respondent No.1, Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Madhava Rao

Ambadipudi, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed the present intra-

court appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

3. Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.22021 of 2025 against the

respondents to set aside the election notification No.TGIIC-

IALA/UPPAL/Elections/2025-28, dated 15.07.2025, to declare the

eligible voter list published with the said notification as illegal, to

declare that the TGIIC lacks statutory competence to conduct such

elections in the absence of explicit authorization post

G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 21.01.2017 and to direct the respondents to

produce any such legal instrument, if any, and to pass other orders.

4. Respondents 2 to 4 and 5 have filed counters in the said writ

petition.

5. Vide order dated 15.10.2025, learned Single Judge dismissed

the said writ petition holding that once the election process is set

on motion, any challenge relating to conduct or validity of the

election cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

6. As discussed supra, petitioner sought to declare that the

respondent Nos.2 to 4, i.e., TGIIC lacks statutory competence to

conduct such elections in the absence of explicit authorization post

G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 21.01.2017. Petitioner also placed reliance

on the G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 21.01.2017 and circular dated

21.10.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent to contend that the said

elections were conducted pursuant to circular dated 21.10.2016

which was repealed vide G.O.Ms.No.196, dated 21.01.2017.

However, the said aspects were not considered by the learned

Single Judge in the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government

Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development,

learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 did not dispute the

said fact.

8. In the light of the same, with the consent of learned counsel

for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2

to 4 and 5, the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 in W.P.No.22021

of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the

matter is remitted back to learned Single Judge to decide all the

issues raised by the parties in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Liberty is

granted to the writ petitioner to seek expeditious disposal of the

said writ petition.

9. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous

applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J

_________________________________ VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J 07th November, 2025.

kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

07th November, 2025.

KVS