High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 10 AP CK 4376

Namana Satyanarayana @ Bujji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati · Decided on 29 October 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kiranmayee Mandava, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No: 31330 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 500 words

Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing for the respondents.

2.

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is against the action of the respondent Nos.7 & 8 in not passing any orders on the representation filed by the petitioner dated 17-10-2026.

3.

Challenging the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation made by the petitioner to reconsider the pro forma-1 list of reservation for the posts of Sarpanch in Tallapudi Mandal, by considering the percentage of voters particularly the Backward Class Community, more particularly in the villages of Annadevarapeta and Prakkilanka Grama Panchayaths of Tallapudi Mandal, by following the roster for such reservation as per the rules in vogue.

4.

It is contended that the petitioner belongs to Thallapudi Grama Panchayat, Thallapudi Mandal, East Godavari District. For reservation purposes, the entire Mandal is taken as a unit, consisting of 11 villages. The election notification for conducting elections to Gram Panchayats has not yet been issued. However, the pre-election process has already begun. Pro forma -1 list of reservations for the post of Sarpanch, for the entire Thallapudi Mandal, has been issued without following the reservations on a rotation basis. It is contended that before issuing the Pro forma-1, the respondents did not call for any objections. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation to the 7th respondent on 17.10.2026, which was forwarded to respondent No.3, who in turn forwarded it to respondent No.4 by letter dated 19.10.2026. Despite placing the said representation before the 4th respondent, no orders have been passed on the same.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Rule 8(3) and 9(1) of G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 12-10-2026 has not been followed by the respondents while issuing proforma-1. It is contended that if elections to Gram Panchayats are held without following the reservation procedure, it would defeat the purpose of reservations entirely. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the inaction in considering the petitioner's representation.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that, the election notification is likely to be issued at any time, thus the petitioner approached this Court by seeking a direction to the respondent No.7/respondent No.4 to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner.

7.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that on the basis of voters strength in the case of Backward Classes and as per the AP Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats and Offices of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Praja Parishads and Zilla Parishads Rules,2026, the reservations have been fixed.

8.

However, having regard to the grievance of the petitioner that the representation remained undisposed and unconsidered. This Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.7 to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 17-10-2026 forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.