Telangana High Court: The present writ petition was filed seeking to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent 2 in issuing the unnumbered notice dated 30-3-2024 (‘impugned notice’) as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of Constitution and set aside the same. T. Vinod Kumar, J., held that the action of Respondent 3 in issuing the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024 did not suffer from any infirmity. The Court opined that petitioner was in the habit of taking liberties in approaching the Court by filing writ petitions without any basis, not disclosing all the relevant facts, making uncorroborated allegations, and resorting to suppression, wasting judicial time. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition with exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh to be paid to the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee.
Background
Petitioner submitted that initially she was elected as ward member of Respondent 4, Adibatla Municipality and thereafter was elected as the Chairperson of the said Municipality. Petitioner further submitted that Respondent 2 being fully aware of the election notification issued for the Parliament elections, had issued the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024 without even mentioning any ROC number which itself proved the unethical practice adopted by Respondent 2. Based on this, petitioner sought for suspension of the impugned notice and contended that though the same pertained to the Adibatla Municipality, the same was issued under the signature of Respondent 3, who was unconnected with the affairs of the said Municipality; and no reason was specified for the issuance of such notice.
Respondent submitted that petitioner’s claim of continuing to hold the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality was wrong, as petitioner was removed from the office of Chairperson in a No-confidence motion moved on 9-2-2024 and the Government having issued the G.O. Ms. No.55 M.A. & U.D department, dated 23-3-2024, notifying the motion of No-confidence against petitioner having been moved successfully on account of which, a casual vacancy to the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality had arisen, petitioner could not continue to claim as the Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality.
Respondent contended that the action of Respondent 3 in issuing the impugned notice was in accordance with the Rule 4 of the Telangana Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Municipal Council and Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Municipal Corporation) Rules, 2020 (‘Rules) as notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 18, MA & UD (MA) Department, dated 16-2-2020.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court found it necessary to put on record the conduct of petitioner’s Counsel in trying to address this Court in a high-pitched voice and also in an intimidating manner on 4-4-2024 while seeking to mention the matter for being taken up, after the same was directed to be listed before this Court by a coordinate bench on 3-4-2024. The Court opined that the conduct of the Counsels addressing the Court in a high decibel, had become a regular practice to deter the Court from either taking up or not taking up their cases. The conduct on the part of the counsel which obstructed administration of justice amounted to ‘misconduct’ under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 having a wider import.
The Court opined that the counsels who adopt such practices, jeopardize the harmony with the Bench along with their professional careers, by ignoring the fact that they were not only required to conduct the case in a fair manner, but while doing so they were also officers of the Court. The Court further opined that though it was not deterred by such kinds of practices or tactics adopted by the Counsel, it felt necessary to place the same on record, so that it would act as a cautionary tale to the counsels appearing before the Court.
The Court noted that petitioner had earlier approached this Court twice and while the first petition was withdrawn; the second petition was dismissed on the ground that petitioner had approached this Court by resorting to suppression. The Court further noted that in the present case, petitioner did not mention that a no-confidence motion was moved against her, after which she ceased to be the Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality and on account of the motion of No-confidence against petitioner, a casual vacancy had arisen in the office of Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality which was required to be filled up by the State Election Commission by issuing a notification.
The Court noted that the Telangana State Election Commission had issued the notification dated 27-3-2024 whereby Respondent 2 was directed to take steps for conducting election to the casual vacancy in the offices of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality. The Court opined that petitioner’s challenge to the impugned notice was based on irrelevant, unconnected, and unsubstantiated allegations which have no bearing to the issue involved, to cause prejudice in the mind of the Court against respondents.
The Court opined that petitioner who herself was Chairperson of the Adibatla Municipality for over three years and claimed to have discharged her duties, was unaware of the procedure that was to be followed for electing a Chairperson and moving of No-confidence motion against the Chairperson, even though petitioner had faced both the actions, firstly, when she was elected as Chairperson in 2020 and thereafter facing No-confidence motion in 2024. The said conduct of petitioner only showed that she believed in adopting the approach of approbate and reprobate to suit her convenience and suffered from selective amnesia.
The Court observed that based on the direction both in the Notification issued by the Telangana State Election Commission on 27-3-2024, and the Election Programme issued by the State Election Commission, Respondent 3, who was a gazetted officer and authorized by Respondent 2, had issued the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024. Thus, the Court held that the action of Respondent 3 in issuing the impugned notice dated 30-3-2024 did not suffer from any infirmity and was in accordance with the Notification and the Rules.
The Court further observed that petitioner under the guise of challenging the notice dated 30-3-2024 was indirectly laying a challenge to the election process notified, vide notification dated 27-3-2024. Thus, the Court relied on Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath, (2016) 4 SCC 429 and opined that once a notification was issued, setting in motion the election process, the same should not ordinarily be interfered with. The Court opined that the writ petition filed by petitioner was without any basis, frivolous and misconceived and was liable to be dismissed.
The Court also opined that petitioner was in the habit of taking liberties in approaching the Court by filing writ petitions without any basis, not disclosing all the relevant facts, making uncorroborated allegations, and resorting to suppression, wasting judicial time, warranting imposition of exemplary costs. Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition with the exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh to be paid to the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee.
The Court added a post-script directing the Registry to mark a copy of this order to the State Bar Council, so that the Bar Council could take steps to inculcate discipline in the Advocates while at the time of enrollment as well as at the time periodical renewal of the certificate of practice.
[Kotha Arthica v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 494, Order dated 10-4-2024]
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Advocate
For the Respondent: GP for Revenue
Buy Constitution of India HERE
