Plea in Telangana HC challenges GHMC ward delimitation preliminary notification

Hyderabad: A plea in Telangana High Court on Monday challenged the Delimitation Preliminary Notification, dated December 9, issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Commissioner RV Karnan.

Petitioner claims his objections to delimitation exercise were ignored

The petitioner, C Vinay Kumar, a resident of Chikkadpally, challenged the preliminary notification on the grounds that the GHMC Commissioner had failed to consider the objections submitted by him prior to the issuance of the notification.

Seeking judicial intervention, the petitioner prayed for a direction to the GHMC Commissioner to duly consider his objections before proceeding with the issuance of the Delimitation Final Notification.

‘Delimitation exercise causing widespread confusion’

Appearing through counsel, the petitioner submitted that the preliminary delimitation exercise has resulted in widespread confusion among voters across various divisions.

Highlighting specific instances, it was contended that the notification proposes to change the name of the erstwhile Ramnagar Division-87, earlier known as Chikkadpally Division, to Bagh Lingampally Division-164, despite the earlier nomenclature having existed for several decades, even prior to the formation of GHMC in 2007.

It was further submitted that prior to the 2009 GHMC elections, Chikkadpally Division was renamed as Ramnagar Division-87 and the said name continued uninterruptedly during three successive GHMC elections held in 2009, 2016 and 2020.

The petitioner contended that altering the division names once again would cause significant confusion among the public and voters.

‘Delimitation would lead to relocation of funds’

The petitioner also raised apprehensions that the delimitation process could potentially lead to diversion of funds earmarked for developmental works in specific divisions.

It was argued that funds allocated for particular divisions may be reallocated to newly merged divisions, thereby depriving residents of the original colonies or blocks of the intended benefits of developmental projects.

‘No sufficient grounds yet’

After hearing the submissions, Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy observed that, prima facie, the petitioner did not appear to have sufficient grounds to raise such objections in the writ petition. Making the said observation, the Court adjourned the matter and directed the Registry of the High Court to list the writ petition in the Motion List.

The case stands adjourned for further hearing.