Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Sudheer Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State Election Commission, Sri T.P.S.Harsha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Kopal Sharraf, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 8/ Election Commission of India.

2. The Appeal arises out of an interim order dated 28.11.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36510 of 2025 directing to consider the name of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing Elections to Indugula Village and Gram Panchayat with a finding that her name has to be included in the Electoral Rolls of the Gram Panchayat concerned.

3. The Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition by way of Lunch Motion seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not including the name of the Writ Petitioner in the Electoral Rolls (Voters List) of Indugula village, Madugulapalli Mandal, Nalgonda District which is reserved for ST Category, as illegal.

4. The learned Single Judge considering the issue primarily held that since the petitioner’s name is appearing in the list of Election Commission of India as resident of concerned Gram Panchayat before the date of Election Notification, her name has to be included in the Electoral Rolls of the concerned Gram Panchayat, thereby directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in participating in the ensuing Elections.

5. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, kearned Senior Counsel appearing for the Telangana State Election Commission contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to Section 11 of The Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short ‘The Act’) as the Electoral Roll for the Gram Panchayat shall be with reference to the qualifying date as may be prescribed by the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission notified 01.07.2025 as the qualifying date vide its Notification dated 26.08.2025 whereas sub-Section (3) of section 11 of the Act, 2018 specifies that the Electoral Rolls published shall remain in force till fresh Electoral Rolls are published.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further contented that the Electoral Roll of the concerned Assembly Constituencies made by the Electoral Registration Officer will not be part of Electoral Roll of the Gram Panchayat unless it is notified under the Act. Therefore, contended that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed the respondents in the Writ Petition to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing elections without her name included in the Electoral Rolls of the Gram Panchayat, and prays to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

7. Sri T.P.S. Harsha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contends that the name of the Writ Petitioner is reflecting as a voter of the Village. In the Election Commission of India Identity card which is downloaded on 26.11.2025 reflects the name of the Writ Petitioner specifically showing the address as ‘H.No.4-16, Indugula village, Madugulapalli, Nalgonda’, and the Track Application, which is submitted on 06.11.2025 duly accepted on 13.11.2025, reflecting the name of the Writ Petitioner as voter of the said Village.

8. The learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner further contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is only an interim order directing to consider the case of the Writ petitioner for participating in the ensuing elections and that the various new contentions raised by the Appellant can be gone into at the time of final hearing of the Writ Petition.

9. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.8/Election Commission of India contended that the name of the Writ Petitioner was found place in the Electoral List on 13.11.2025 and further contended that the Election process is a continuous process which requires daily updation and there is no privity to inform the same to the State Election Commission.

10. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions raised by the parties.

11. Since, the Writ Appeal is filed against the order of a learned Single Judge passed in an Interlocutory Application, which is returnable on 29.12.2025. As such, no irreparable prejudice would be caused to the Appellants if the election goes on and in the event the of Writ Petitioner winning or losing the election, appropriate remedies are available under law.

12. Further, no illegality or perversity can be found in the order by the learned Single Judge for interfering with the interim orders. However, we have not gone into the merits of the case which can be adjudicated by way of regular hearing of the Writ Petition. Since the impugned order is Interlocutory in nature, and the Writ Petition is not yet disposed of, no irreparable loss will be caused to the appellant.

13. On the other hand, the impugned order directing to consider the case of the Writ Petitioner for participating in the ensuing election does not amount to interference of Election process. We are also mindful of the law settled on the subject. However, our only concern is that democratic process of the election should be upheld.

14. The integrity of the democratic process rests upon the conduct of free, fair, transparent, and timely elections. It is the solemn duty of all Institutions and stakeholders to safeguard this process by ensuring that voters may exercise their franchise freely, without fear, coercion or undue influence, and that all participants in the electoral contest are able to campaign and compete on an equal and unhindered footing.

15. Further, the maintainability of the Writ Appeal against an Interim order must be tested against whether the order significantly affects the rights or causes irreversible consequences. If the Interim Order granted matches the prayer, dissatisfaction with its scope or duration, does not justify an Appeal unless substantial legal prejudice is demonstrated.

16. Therefore, apart from the above contentions, the Appellant is at liberty to file an appropriate Application before the learned Single Judge. In such an event, we request the learned Single Judge to take up the matter on priority basis.

17. In view of the observations, we do not find any merit in the Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.