SUDA VENKATARATNAM Vs. BEESA BATHUNI PITCHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals have been filed against the same judgment passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.22410 of 2002. W.A.No.1 of 2003 has been filed by the respondent No.3 in the writ petition, whereas W.A.No.62 of 2003 has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner has filed a writ petition being W.P.No.22410 of 2002 challenging the proceedings dt. 27-8-2002 disqualifying her from the office of member of 12th Ward of Chilakaluripet Municipality, Guntur district as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to Section 16(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities act, 1965 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner contended that she had contested for the post of member of 12th ward of Chilakaluripet Municipality in the elections that were held in the month of March, 2000. She stated that there were 1322 valid votes polled in all, she secured 828 votes and she was declared elected member of the 12th ward. She contested the election as an official candidate of Congress party. She contended that the Chairperson of the Municipal Council belonged to the Telugu Desham Party. The impugned order dt. 27-8-2002 which was challenged is a resolution passed by the Municipal Council, Chilakaluripeta, which is reproduced below,

(3.) Now the whole controversy relates to interpretation of Section 16(k) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner was that there could be a disqualification if the member had failed to attend three consecutive meetings, but for convening a meeting at least three days clear notice had to be given to each member. All the members were supposed to receive notices, but she had not received any notice from the Commissioner or from the council or from the Chairperson for any such meeting, therefore if any meeting was held, that was contrary to the rules. Under Section 16 (3) of the A.P. Municipalities Act there was a provision for restoration of the membership. Even if the resolution was legal, she had a right to be restored because she had made a representation immediately on the same day when the resolution was communicated to her under Section 16(3) of the Act, but no action was taken on that representation. She stated that her son was unwell, she had intimated this to the Council and to the Commissioner and she had gone to Madras for treatment of her son in the month of May, 2002. Even after her return, she did not receive any notice relating to the meeting of the council and in the absence of any such notice, for not attending the meetings, she could not be disqualified. It was also contended that the 2nd respondent had not considered the application for restoration of the membership u/s.16(3) of the Act which was arbitrary and illegal. It was also contended that without deciding her representation, the 1st respondent- Commissioner had issued the notification for re-election to the 12th ward member, which was also without jurisdiction.