HYDERABAD: A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court dismissed a PIL challenging provisions of The Representation of People’s Act (RPA), 1951, pertaining to the arrangement of names of candidates on ballot papers. The PIL bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, was dealing with a PIL filed by Pareekshith Reddy Pesarikayala Paree. The petitioner appearing party in person argued that the process being followed by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in finalising the order of the arrangement of candidates as per the provisions of Section 38 (2) of the RPA is an unfair practice and is against the interest of democracy. He further sought a direction against ECI to conduct a draw in the presence of all contesting candidates or agents for the order of arrangement of candidates.
The bench, speaking through Chief Justice Aradhe, said that there are no antecedents of the petitioner to prove the PIL was filed in public interest. The bench remarked that if the petitioner himself was aggrieved, he ought to have filed a regular writ petition instead of a PIL, and in failure to comply with the required procedure for filing a PIL it cannot be entertained. The bench accordingly dismissed the PIL, however liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek recourse to the remedies available to him in the law.
Ban on rooftop hoardings: SCB refrained from taking further action
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the Secunderabad Cantonment Board [SCB] not to take any further action pursuant to a public notice issued by it last June. By the order, the SCB had banned hoardings on rooftops of private buildings on the premise that they pose a threat to nearby residents and commuters in the rainy season. The judge was dealing with a batch of writ pleas filed by the persons carrying on business of outdoor advertising and eking out their livelihood. It is the case of the petitioners that they had put up rooftop hoardings in and around SCB by maintaining all safety standards, by paying necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and taxes without any default. It is further the case of the petitioners that the SCB had issued a general notification that all the rooftop hoardings along with it structures be removed immediately in view of public safety on or before June 30, 2023. Counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned public notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice and passed without jurisdiction. The petitioners contended that such action was in violation of the statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act. Opposing the said arguments, SCB said that the board is empowered to remove rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the Act and therefore there was no illegality in issuing the impugned notice. The said notice is issued to protect safety and security of the public and to prevent a shabby look to the cantonment due to such hoardings and as a policy decision.
Justice Nanda examining the issue observed that Section 297 of the Cantonment Act 2006 clearly indicates a standard procedure to be followed by the board pertaining to ‘issuance of notice’ and Section 318 deals with ‘service of notice’. In the present case admittedly as borne on record and even as admitted by the board the procedure has not been followed. The judge further observed that contents of the impugned public notice clearly indicates that it is a final notice issued to the petitioners and not a show cause notice and the same indicates that as per the resolution of the board it had been decided that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety.
“This court opines that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice in the present case. This Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners ought to have been put on notice prior to issuing the present impugned Memo issued in October 30, 2015, by the SCB and prior to passing the impugned order issued in October 30, 2015 by the SCB in all fairness and admittedly as borne on record, the petitioners have not been heard prior to passing of the orders impugned and therefore, the orders impugned are in clear violation of audi alteram partem rule,” the judge observed.
Justice Nanda allowing the batch of petitions said, “This court opines that SCB is an authority to determine the questions effecting rights of subjects has a duty to act judicially and it cannot decide against the rights of the petitioner without hearing the petitioner or giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his or her case in the manner known to law. This court is of the firm opinion that the impugned notice is a final order which has been passed admittedly without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and which even according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is contrary to the standard procedure laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006.”
The judge accordingly allowed the petitioner and made it clear that this order will not come in the way of the board to take any appropriate action in accordance to law.
Siddipet municipality draws flak for inaction against illegal constructions
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court expressed dissatisfaction at the manner in which Siddipet municipality had failed to stop illegal constructions within its jurisdiction. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Gopari Srilatha and another, who alleged that Gouraboina Srinivas has been carrying out illegal construction, while deviating from the sanctioned plan for which the Siddipet municipality had failed to take any action despite representations to them. The petitioner contended that such action was contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019. The petitioner alleged that the respondent authorities had failed to ensure implementation of the earlier court orders that no illegal construction was being carried out contrary to the sanctioned plan. The judge deferred the hearing of the matter for two weeks, at the instance of the counsel representing said municipality.
