Live
- Fatal Fire Erupts In Hotel Near Patna Junction, Claims Six Lives
- Congress Challenges PM Modi's Allegations: Calls Out "Falsehoods" Amidst Electoral Rhetoric
- CPI(M) leader seeks Calcutta HC’s attention over Bengal CM's anti-judiciary comments
- Aparna Yadav Challenges Akhilesh Yadav's Candidacy In Kannauj: No Longer A Smooth Ride For Samajwadi Party
- A constable who helped an old woman in a very dangerous place
- WBSSC Claims Eligibility For 19,000 Dismissed Staff Amidst Teacher Recruitment Scandal
- Tollywood’s shifting landscape: The growing influence of OTT platforms
- YSR Congress Party MLA candidate KK Raju campaigns in 23rd Ward Priyadarshini Colony
- Leaders and Residents Welcome TDP Candidates Pulivarthi Nani and Daggumalla Prasada Rao in Tirupati
- 30 Families Switch Allegiance from YSR Congress to Telugu Desam Party in Batladinne Village
PIL for polls to KMC
A two-judge PIL bench of the High Court at Hyderabad, comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice A. Shanker Narayan, asked the Government of AP to respond by the next week to a writ plea complaining of inordinate delay in the conduct of elections to the Kurnool Municipal Corporation.
A two-judge PIL bench of the High Court at Hyderabad, comprising acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice A. Shanker Narayan, asked the Government of AP to respond by the next week to a writ plea complaining of inordinate delay in the conduct of elections to the Kurnool Municipal Corporation.
The bench is hearing a writ plea filed in public interest by G Krishniah. The petitioner complained that the government had failed to conduct elections to the civic body for over five years.
The petitioner contended that this amounted to a failure of the constitutional provision which required elections to be held once in every five years.
The petitioner also challenged the government order that enabled it to extend the term of office of the Special Officer on a regular basis.
Rachna Reddy, counsel for the petitioner, argued that earlier the court had issued a detailed calendar for the conduct of the election, which should have been over by September.
Failure to conduct the elections, the petitioner said, was not only unconstitutional, but also in direct contravention of the orders of the court.
