PULIMI SAILAJA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, who is a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of nellore files this writ petition seeking for a Mandamus declaring the action of the Government in initiating proceedings to remove her from the said office, as illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and further vitiated by malice in law and tainted with mala fides while seeking a declaration primarily that Section 639-B of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1956 as unconstitutional, consequently to hold that the action of the government in initiating the impugned proceedings vide Memo No. 6929/elec. II/2008, dated 13-06-2008 as void and to set aside the same.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the petitioner was elected as Corporator from Ward No. 38 of the Nellore Municipal Corporation in the elections held on 24-09-2005 and subsequently she got elected unanimously to the post of Mayor in the election, conducted on 30-9-2005. She has taken charge on 5-10-2005 and thus the term of the office comes to an end on 29-09-2010. She states that there are in all 50 Wards in the Municipality; of which Congress won 19, TDP-20, Independents-5, C. P. M-4 and BJP-2, apart from four Ex-officio members viz. , one Member of Parliament and three members of andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, including the 3rd respondent herein. She takes to her credit about several developmental activities taken up for the betterment of the city by procuring substantial funds. However, she states that the 3rd respondent, who is MLA from local Nellore Assembly Constituency and Ex-officio member of the Corporation, along with his henchmen, is trying to create hurdles for no fault of her. It is only in pursuance of such avowed motive, the impugned show-cause notice dated 13-6-2008 is being given, which is served on her on 14-6-2008. In the said notice, certain charges have been alleged to the effect that she is not discharging the duties legitimately and willfully omitted to carry out the provisions of the Act and Rules made there under, and that she has abused the powers vested in the office as Mayor and called upon to give explanation within 7 days. According to her, all those allegations and charges are totally vague and do not have any basis and are invented only for the purpose of removing her from the post. Therefore, she has filed the present writ petition, inter alia seeking to assail the constitutional validity of section 679-B of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act under which the said action is initiated and consequently to set aside the same. Hence, stating that though she need not reply to the show cause notice, however, as abundant caution, she has filed an explanation as a ritual. According to her, Section 679-B of the said Act violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is in the teeth of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act i. e. , Part IX-A of the Constitution read with 12th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Since the basis for such action on mere formation of opinion by the Government it vests totally an arbitrary exercise of power to remove an elected peoples' representative, such course is quite opposite to the tenets of Article 14 of the constitution of India and the object and intent of the 74th Constitutional amendment. Further, as per Article 243u of the Constitution the term of 5 years is assured to an elected Mayor of the municipality, which is an independent local institution. Therefore conferring of such sweeping power in respect of institution under Article 243 (P) of the Constitution of India unlike corporation is totally unconstitutional. Therefore, the said provision defeats the object and scope. An elected representative is virtually kept under mercy of the government in spite of such constitutional safeguard enshrined. Even otherwise, prescribing a disqualification for future election under Clause (3)of Section 679-B of the said Act effects the rights of the citizen to contest for a democratic office. Therefore, the entire process as initiated there under is only a make belief, and thus, the same does not cater to the limitations prescribed under the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution of india. Further, in support, the petitioner pleaded mala fides on the part of the 3rd respondent herein, who is a local MLA and an Ex-officio member of the corporation. The brother of the 3rd respondent Sri Anam Ram Narayana Reddy is the Minister in the cabinet of the Government of Andhra Pradesh being elected as mla from the Rapur Assembly Constituency. Both of them are using their political influence by adopting dictatorial attitudes. It is only at the instance of 3rd respondent, who has become inimical and who wants to de-thrown her from the post, the impugned action is taken up. In support, the petitioner has narrated various incidents that occurred at Nellore on 2-6-2007 , where in a function she was not invited to the dias during the visit of Chief Minister, which has been reported in the press widely on 3-6-2007 for singling out her and ill-treatment meted. Secondly, there is a complaint by the Commissioner of the corporation himself on 27-7-2007 about the behavior of the corporators. The 3rd respondent claims that the petitioner has been installed at his instance, even though she is not qualified, the said statement appeared in press on 26-1-2008. Thus, there have been several such ill-treatments and harassments meted out to the petitioner and the petitioner has been assaulted by some of the lady corporators, which has been reported in the local edition of the newspaper on 18-4-2008. The petitioner filed a police case complaining about assault on her. The 3rd respondent went on reporting to the press as evident from the report in the newspapers, dated 20-4-2008 that the petitioner has to be sacked. The 3rd respondent addressed several letters including the letter dated 23-4-2008 against the petitioner to remove her from the office. Ultimately, all these incidents and the alleged letters from the 3rd respondent have virtually lead the government to issue the impugned show-cause notice to the petitioner. On the face of it, the petitioner states that since the action is tainted with mala fides being at the instance of the 3rd respondent, who is closer to the higher quarters of the ruling government has to be set at naught. Even otherwise, the show-cause notice only repeats the contents of very same complaints given by the 3rd respondent and is a virtual reproduction thereof without applying mind. Therefore, there is absolutely no due consideration on its own by the Government in the initiation of the said process. In respect of certain allegations made in the show-cause the petitioner sought to explain to them in detail about the services and the extent of need, which she would secure for the corporation in respect of certain works. Therefore, it is stated that the entire allegations and the charges as leveled against her are not correct, but are tainted with malice. Thus, she submits that there is neither any illegal act on her part nor any abuse of power, much less misuse thereof. In view of such serious action taken recourse to for no fault on her part, the petitioner submits that she has to invoke the extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, hence, the writ petition.

(3.) PENDING the writ petition, in the interim application seeking suspension of the proceedings dated 13-6-2008, after filing of the counter affidavit by the respondent No. 1, this Court passed the interim orders in WPMP. No. 16527 of 2008, dated 27-2-2008 suspending the same, mainly, taking note of the allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 3, which prima facie require to be gone into in the writ petition and that even though the government had conducted earlier two preliminary enquiries followed up by the respective reports prior to the issuance of show cause notice, but the same does not find place in the show cause and even in the counter affidavit, there is no explanation for the conspicuous absence. The main writ itself was directed to be posted for final hearing. Accordingly, final arguments were taken up.