M MALAYADRI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 16-3-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No.2888 of 2007 in WP No.2256 of 2007, whereby he declined the appellants' prayer for stay of notification dated 16-1-2007 issued by State Government under Section 3(1-A) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965.

(2.) Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside because it is devoid of reasons. He further argued that even though the appellants and other residents raised several objections to the exclusion and inclusion of certain areas from Kandukuru Municipality, the concerned authority did not objectively consider the same and the State Government arbitrarily issued the final notification. Another argument of the learned Counsel is that the notification impugned in the writ petition is ultra vires the provisions contained in Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of areas into/from the limits of Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2006. He made a particular reference to Rule 3 of the Rules and emphasized that inclusion of some areas in the new Municipalities which are at a distance of more than 3 K.ms. and exclusion of some areas which fall within the radius of 3 K.ms. is clearly indicative of non-application of mine by the concerned authority.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development defended the impugned notification and argued that the learned Single Judge did no commit any error by refusing to stay alteration in the boundaries of Kandukuru Municipality. He submitted that equities can be settled at the time of final adjudication of the writ petition, but interlocutory intervention by the Court will create innumerable complications.