Ramagundam Municipal Corporation is facing allegations that sewing machines meant for minority women are being handed out without transparency. Akarapu Rekha Mahesh, corporator of the 51st division, made the charge on October 29 while speaking to reporters in Godavarikhani, and she is demanding an immediate inquiry.

Mahesh said she asked the civic body for the list of beneficiaries under the sewing machine scheme in her division. According to her, municipal officials responded with the same careless answers they always give. She said that when eligible minority residents in her division told her they had not received machines, she tried to reach the officials responsible. They were not available.

The core of her complaint is that the elected representative of the division has not been given the beneficiary list at all. She asked what the reason could be for withholding it from the person who represents those residents. Her question to the officials was blunt. Are sewing machines and Indiramma houses being sanctioned only to people recommended by leaders of the ruling party?

Are sewing machines and Indiramma houses being sanctioned only to people recommended by leaders of the ruling party?

The allegation goes beyond the list itself. Mahesh said that as a woman holding elected office, she has been treated with disrespect by municipal officials since she first took up the post. She also said basic protocol is not being followed when it comes to her role in the division. She described her frustration in emotional terms, saying the neglect hurts.

The most serious claim in her press interaction concerns money. Mahesh said there are reports that some women from her division were lured with the promise that sewing machines would be arranged for them. Middlemen, she alleged, then collected Rs 1,000 from each of them. These are allegations raised by the corporator, and the report does not establish who the middlemen are or how many women paid.

For residents of Ramagundam, the issue is not abstract. Sewing machine schemes are meant to give women a way to earn a living, and when names are added or removed without a visible process, the people who most need help are the ones left waiting. Mahesh framed the matter as a question of fairness to eligible women, not just a dispute between the corporator and the civic body.

The Telangana angle is direct. The allegations concern a welfare distribution inside a municipal corporation in Karimnagar district, and the demands are aimed at local civic leadership. Her complaint also links the sewing machine scheme to Indiramma houses, raising the question of whether other local welfare benefits are being handled the same way.

Mahesh made three specific demands. First, she asked Municipal Commissioner to order an impartial inquiry into the distribution. Second, she asked that ineligible names be removed from the list and that eligible women receive their machines. Third, she said that if it is confirmed that money was collected, those responsible should face action under the law.

She also demanded that the beneficiary list be published immediately, arguing that publication is the simplest step toward transparency. Her point was that if the list is public, residents can check whether their names are on it and whether the people who received machines are genuinely eligible.

The report does not include a response from the Municipal Commissioner or other municipal officials to Mahesh’s allegations. It also does not confirm whether an inquiry has been ordered. Those points remain open, and they will determine whether the complaint moves from press statements to an official review.

What the public record shows so far is a sharp dispute between an elected corporator and municipal officials over who controls access to welfare information. Mahesh’s allegations involve three threads that residents will recognise from many local welfare schemes: lists that are not shared, officials who cannot be reached, and claims of money changing hands for benefits that should be free.

Whether the allegations hold up will depend on what the civic body releases next. A published beneficiary list would allow the claims to be tested against names on paper. Without it, the dispute will continue to rest on the word of the corporator and the silence of the officials she names.

For now, the story is a direct challenge from a woman corporator to the civic administration in Ramagundam. She is asking the Commissioner to act, asking residents to be heard, and asking a simple question that the officials have so far not answered in public: who gets the machines, and why.