HARI SATYANARAYANA Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important question that arises in the instant writ petition is whether the Government of the Stale is empowered to cancel/suspend the meeting convened to consider the motion of "No- Confidence" moved against the Vice-Chairperson of the Municipal Council, under the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, (for short 'the Act').

(2.) To decide the above question, it is necessary to notice few facts : The petitioners are the Councillors of Palavancha Municipality of Ward Nos.20 and 22, elected in the elections held on 19-3-1995. The election to the post of Vice-Chairperson was held and the 4th respondent has been, elected as Vice-Chairperson. Thereafter on 12-9-1997 majority members of the Municipal Council submitted to the 2nd respondent a motion of 'No-Confidence' against the 4th respondent, under Section 46 of the Act, The 2nd respondent, after considering the said motion, issued notices to all the eligible members of the Municipal Council, fixing the date of meeting on 7-10-1997 at 11 am. in his proceedings dated 18-9-97. At that time, one of the Councillors thought it fit to challenge the election of the petitioners as Councillors, as null and void, by filing the W.P.22224/97 and also sought for an interim direction restraining the petitioners from participating in the meeting and exercising their vote. But, the writ petition, however, was dismissed. It is also interesting to notice that while the No-Confidence Motion was already convened, it was disputed that the petitioners were not qualified to participate in the No-Confidence Motion on the ground that they were holding office of profit and for that reason they were disqualified. Hence, the petitioners filed O.P.Nos. 666/97 and 665/97 respectively before the District Judge, Khammam, under Section 17 of the Act, to obtain a decision with regard to the alleged disqualification of the petitioners and the same are pending decision. As per sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act, the member shall be entitled to act as if he was not disqualified, pending decision of the District Judge. The 4th respondent, against whom meeting to consider No-Confidence Motion was proposed to be convened on 7-10-97, approached the Government to stall the meeting, being the follower of Telugu Desam Party. The Government, thereupon, passed the impugned order dated 6-10-1997 suspending the meeting proposed to be convened on 7-10-1997. The said order was passed in exercise of the powers of the Government conferred by sub-section (1) Clause (c) of sub-clause (ii) and sub-section (2) of Section 59 of the Act. The order was communicated by Fax message to the 2nd respondent, who passed the consequential order dated 6-10-1997, which is also impugned in the instant case, cancelling the meeting.

(3.) It is seriously contended by Sri M.N. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that Respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to pass the orders under Section 59 of the Act. It is also contended that the orders being mala fide are liable to be quashed.