NALLAMOTHU RUTHRANI Vs. STATE GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent, the District Collector, Guntur addressed a notice in proforma-II dated 13-10-2008 informing the petitioner - the Chairperson of the ponnuru Municipal Council - that the 2nd respondent was communicated a notice of the intention to move a motion expressing 'want of confidence' in the petitioner under Section 46 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'); that the meeting of the Municipal Council, Ponnuru, would be held on 29-08-2008 at 11-00 A. M. at the specified premises for consideration of the motion; and that a copy of the proposed motion was enclosed and signed by nineteen (19)members which having been verified by the 2nd respondent was found to be in order as regards identity of the signatories to the proposed motion. This notice dated 13-10-2008 is impeached on the sole ground that the notice of the intention to move motion received by the 2nd respondent is in transgression of the provisions of Section 46 of the Act.

(2.) THE non-official respondents herein and some others, in all nineteen (19)councillors of the Ponnuru Municipal Council addressed the 2nd respondent in proforma-II giving notice of the intention, as required by Section 46 of the act, to move a motion expressing 'want of confidence' in the petitioner as chairperson of the Municipal Council. Proforma-II contains an assertion that a copy of the motion proposed to be made is enclosed, in conformity with the statutory provision. It is however the admitted position that a separate copy of the proposed motion is not enclosed to Proforma-II notice, which was signed by the nineteen (19) representationists and addressed to the 2nd respondent. This failure to enclose a copy of the proposed motion of 'no confidence' is the basis for the petitioner's challenge.

(3.) SECTION 46 (1) of the Act, to the extent relevant and material reads: 46. Motion of no confidence in Chairperson/vice-Chairperson:--