Shaik Azeem Uddin Vs. The State of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and Others

Shaik Azeem Uddin vs The State of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Nov 09, 2015

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1179819

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1179819
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Decided On: Nov 09, 2015
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 36574 of 2015
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Section-23-D, Section-71 €“ Validity - Respondent No.3, voter, filed Petition for setting aside election of Petitioner - Lower Court dismissed Petitioner €™s application filed on ground that Respondent No.3 is not entitled to file said Petiti...

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shaik Azeem Uddin

Advocate Mr. M.Rajender Reddy

Respondent

The State of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and Others

Excerpt

greater hyderabad municipal corporation act, 1955 - section-23-d, section-71 €“ validity - respondent no.3, voter, filed petition for setting aside election of petitioner - lower court dismissed petitioner €™s application filed on ground that respondent no.3 is not entitled to file said petition €“ court held - sections-23-d and 71 of the act show that they are not mutually exclusive and that they operate independently - availing both remedies by aggrieved person is very much permissible under the act and there is no specific bar under section-71 of the act to effect that person who has availed remedy under section-23-d of the act cannot institute proceedings under section-71 thereof €“ thus, petition filed by respondent no.3 is not liable to be dismissed only on ground that he has moved commissioner under section-23-d of the act - petition dismissed. .....the commissioner of nizamabad municipal corporation for disqualifying him under section-23-d of the greater hyderabad municipal corporation act, 1955 (for short the act') and that therefore, having availed such a remedy, he is not entitled to file the o.p. the lower court has dismissed, and in my view correctly, the said i.a. under section-23-d of the act, if an elected member has not qualified or has become disqualified under sections-21, 21-a, 21-b, 22 or 23 of the act, any voter or authority may move the commissioner for deciding the said dispute. under section-71 of the act, a person aggrieved by the election of any candidate is entitled to call in question such election. a reading of both these provisions would show that they are not mutually exclusive and that they operate independently. therefore, availing both the remedies by an aggrieved person is very much permissible under the act and in the absence of any specific bar under section-71 of the act to the effect that a person who has availed the remedy under section-23-d of the act cannot institute proceedings under section-71 thereof, the o.p. filed by respondent no.3 is not liable to be dismissed only on the ground that he has moved the commissioner under section-23-d of the act. in the above view of the matter, i do not find any illegality in the order of the family court-cum-additional district judge, nizamabad in dismissing the i.a. filed by the petitioner for rejecting the above-mentioned o.p. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. as a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, w.p.m.p.no.47110 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

Full Judgment

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order, dated 15.10.2015, in I.A.No.633 of 2015 in O.P.No.234 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

I have heard Mr. A.Sudershan Reddy, learned senior counsel for Mr. M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The petitioner was elected as Corporator of Ward No.39 of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation. Respondent No.3, who is a voter, filed the above-mentioned O.P. for setting aside the said election of the petitioner. In the said O.P., the petitioner filed I.A.No.633 of 2015 for dismissing the said O.P. only on the ground that respondent No.3 has already availed the remedy of approaching the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipal Corporation for disqualifying him under Section-23-D of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short the Act') and that therefore, having availed such a remedy, he is not entitled to file the O.P. The lower Court has dismissed, and in my view correctly, the said I.A.

Under Section-23-D of the Act, if an elected member has not qualified or has become disqualified under Sections-21, 21-A, 21-B, 22 or 23 of the Act, any voter or authority may move the Commissioner for deciding the said dispute. Under Section-71 of the Act, a person aggrieved by the election of any candidate is entitled to call in question such election.

A reading of both these provisions would show that they are not mutually exclusive and that they operate independently. Therefore, availing both the remedies by an aggrieved person is very much permissible under the Act and in the absence of any specific bar under Section-71 of the Act to the effect that a person who has availed the remedy under Section-23-D of the Act cannot institute proceedings under Section-71 thereof, the O.P. filed by respondent No.3 is not liable to be dismissed only on the ground that he has moved the Commissioner under Section-23-D of the Act.

In the above view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioner for rejecting the above-mentioned O.P.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.47110 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief shall stand dismissed as infructuous.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2015 Same Parties Shaik Azeem Uddin vs The State of Telangana, reptd by its Pri... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy

Right to Information