Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday disposed of a writ challenging the delimitation preliminary notification, dated December 9, issued by the GHMC commissioner, while directing authorities to consider the objections raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law.

The writ, filed by C Vinay Kumar of Chikkadpally, was heard by a single bench of Justice Bollam Vijaysen Reddy. The petitioner questioned the delimitation exercise on the ground that the objections submitted by him to the preliminary notification had not been objectively considered by the GHMC before proceeding to finalisation.

The petitioner sought a direction to the GHMC commissioner, to consider his objections--dated December 12--before issuance of the final delimitation notification. He contended that the proposed changes in ward names and boundaries were creating widespread confusion among voters. Drawing the court’s attention to the proposed re-naming of the erstwhile Ramnagar division No.87, earlier known as Chikkadpally, as Bagh Lingampally division No.164, he submitted that the division had retained the name Ramnagar for decades, including during the GHMC elections in 2009, 2016 and 2020. Any further change, he argued, would lead to administrative and public inconvenience.

Kumar apprehended that the delimitation process could result in diversion of development funds originally allocated to specific divisions, following the merger of wards, thereby depriving residents of colonies and blocks of benefits of sanctioned development works. He contended that the proposed merger of ward 164 of Ramnagar into division 163 would cause serious hardship to the public, including changes in door numbers, which would be time-consuming and cumbersome.

He further argued that permanent geographical features such as a 30-foot nala and a 100-foot public road constituted natural boundaries between the areas and should have been respected during delimitation.

Relying on Rule 4 of the Telangana Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules, 1996, the petitioner submitted that delimitation must take into account natural boundaries, geographical features and contiguity; such statutory requirements had not been followed.

The court heard submissions from petitioner’s counsel CH Jayakrishna and the GHMC standing counsel G Madhusudhan Reddy that the objections raised by the petitioner had not been rejected and were yet to be examined, contending that the writ was premature.

Taking note of the petitioner’s apprehension that the preliminary notification might be finalised without granting him an opportunity of hearing, the court disposed of the writ with a direction to the GHMC commissioner to consider the objections raised with reference to Rule 4, by affording an opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. It made no order as to costs and closed all pending miscellaneous petitions connected with the case.