P CHENGALVARAYA SRESHTY Vs. TADIPATRI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28th February, 1968 the Secretary of the Tadpatri Municipality issued a notice under section 217(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 to the petitione asking him to show cause why certain constructions raised by him should not be removed as they were not in conformity with the plan approved by the municipality. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter the Executive Committee of the municipality acting under section 217(3) of the Act, by its order dated 16th March, 1968 confirmed the notice issued by the Secretary. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to the Municipal Council invoking the provisions of section 345 (2) of the Act. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Council on the ground that an appeal from a confirmation order under section 217(3) made by the Executive Committee lay to the Executive Committee itself under section 345 (1) of the Act. It is this order of the Municipal Council that is impugned in this Writ Petition. Section 345 (1) provides for appeals to the Executive Committee from notices issued or other actions taken or proposed to be taken by the Secretary, Municipal Health Officer or any other officer of the Muncipality under the various provisions enumerated in that sub-section. The confusion has arisen because one of the sections enumerated in the first clause of section 345(1)(a) is section 217(3). But a reference to section 217(3) shows that it docs not contemplate the issue of any notice or the taking of any action by the Secretary under that clause. Obviously the reference to section 217(3) in section 345(1) of the Act is a legislative error. Section 345 (2) expressly provides for appeals to the Council from (a) any notice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Executime Committee; (b) any original order of the Executive Committee made under the provisions of this Act or rules or the bye-laws made thereunder. The order of the Executive Committee confirming the ' Show Cause Notice" issued by the Secretary after considering the explanation of the petitioner is certainly an original order within the meaning of section 345 (2)(b). An appeal therefore lay to the Council from the order of the Executive Committee. The order of the Municipal Council, Tadpatri, dated 19th April, 1968 is therefore quashed and the Municipal Council is directed to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits and dispose it of in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.