\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY. THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT \ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N AND THE HONOURABLE DFl JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 669 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 22.05.2025 in I.A.No’l Of 2025 in W.P.No.13590 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: K.Suresh Babu, S/o. Late K.Krishnaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Mayor, Kadapa Municipal Corporation, KaJap^, YSR District. R/o. D.No.37/120, Opp- Manasa Kalyanamandapam, Kondayyapalli Kadapa City, YSR District. ■■■: \ / ...PETITIONER "AND 1. The State of Andhra PrardesHy Te^;, by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Disfhct. > 2. The Commissioner and Difectbr of Municipal Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Krishna District. 3. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, YSR District. Rep. by its Commissioner. 4. The Regional Vigilance and infdrcement Officer, Kadapa YSR District. '■* ^ -y V-X ^ ■ 5. Smt. Madhavi Reddappagari, MLA, Kadapa Assembly Constituency, Kadapa YSR District. ^ ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be f pleased to suspend the G.O.Rt.No.446, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G) Department, dated 14.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.1, pending disposal of the^^ovi Writ Petition. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to post the above Writ Appeal under the caption for “For Being Mentioned” to pass appropriate orders by clarifying the orders, dated 29.05.2025. ..V. '■ Counsel for the Appellant: SRi SRIRAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI Y- R REDDY KOWURI Counsel for Respondent Nos.t, 2 & 4 : GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRi p. VENGALA REDDY, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY Counsel for Respondent No.5: SRI B ADI NARAYANA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI JAWAJI SHARATH CHANDRA The Court made the following: i::: .•. \ \ / r APHC010278352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3539] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 669 OF 2025 Between: K. Suresh Babu ...APPELLANT AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Appellant: 1. Sri S. Shram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sri P. Vengala Reddy 2. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development 3. Sri Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Javvaji Sharath Chandra for respondent No.5. The Court made the following judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Harinath. N) 2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents. 2. The present Writ Appeal is filed challenging the interim order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on .22.05.2025 in W.P.No.13590 of 2025., 3. The petitioner has challenged G.O.Rt.No.446, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G) Department, dated 14.05.2025, issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was removed from the office of Mayor, Kadapa Municipal Corporation for allegedly committing irregularities in execution of several civil contract works in Kadapa Municipal Corporation jurisdiction through M/s.Vardhini Constructions, which is allegedly owned by his family members. Respondent No.1, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 679 (B) (1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the G.H.M.C. Act”), held that the petitionef had disobeyed Section 22 - 1(h) read with Section 23(1) of “the G.H.M.C. Act”. Sri S. Shram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the show cause notice dated 24.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to violation of the provisions of “the G.H.M.C. Act” in executing the civil contracts through M/s.Vardhini Constructions. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9197 of 2025 challenging the issuance of the show cause notice. The learned ^ngle Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, had permitted the petitioner to submit a 4. 3 f reply to the show cause notice by extending the period for submission of reply by three more weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order passed in the writ petition. The petitioner further filed a writ appeal bearing No.519 of 2025 and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2025, had disposed the writ appeal permitting the petitioner to submit his response and the concerned respondent to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard. The learned Division Bench of this Court further observed that if the order is adverse to the interest of the appellant in any manner, the same shall not be given effect to for at least a period of two weeks. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 5. respondent No.2 issued a notice on 09.05.2025 calling upon the petitioner to attend the personal hearing proposed to be held on 13.05.2025 at 3:00 P.M. in the chambers of the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development at the Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.05.2025 requesting to grant two weeks’ time to enable him to take the assistance of a legal practitioner for defending his case. It is submitted that the impugned order in the writ petition was passed on 14.05.2025. Aggrieved by the said impugned order in the writ petition, the petitioner preferred another writ petition vide W.P.No. 13590 of 2025. The learned single Judge, vide order dated 22.05.2025, had refused to grant any interim relief and it was* held by the learned single Judge that the petitioner 4 has not demonstrated favour for passing interim order a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his much less that of suspension as prayed for. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further assumed to be vigilant of the contracts which family members and such held against the petitioner. It i allegedly executed by M/s.Vardhini Constructions council for the petitioner to have knowledge of the submits that the petitioner cannot be are allegedly executed by his assumption without any determination cannot be \ IS submitted that the contracts which are were not placed before the same. As such, it cannot constitute a violation under Section 23(1 )(a) of “the G the power of the State in invoking Section 679-B (2) of “the G.H.M.C. would mandate the submission of • H.M.C.Act”. That apart Act reasons for the Government to take action. It is also submitted that the i adequate opportunity of being heard. impugned order was passed without granting an 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner period of term and that his term following the due process of law and without was elected for a specified cannot be scuttled by the State without granting an ample opportunity to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondents have denied the opportunity of personal hearing as directed by the Division Bench of this Court before passing the impugned order. 8. Learned Government Pleader submissions of the petitioner on the personal hearing note which appearing for the State submits that the were recorded and the petitioner also endorsed was conducted on 13.05.2025 and as 5 such, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of fair hearing. Learned Governnnent Pleader further submits that the action of the State for passing the impugned order cannot be challenged when the petitioner had willfully violated the provisions of Section 22(1 )(h) read with Section 23(1 )(a) of “the G.H.M.C. Act”. Sri B.Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Javvaji Sharath Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.5, virtually submits that the petitioner cannot seek for the assistance of a Legal 9. Practitioner as a matter of right when the statute does not provide for. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.5 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and on perusing the order passed by the learned single Judge, the impugned order in the writ petition dated 14.05.2025 would refer to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9197 of 2025 and W.A.No.519 of 2025. 10. That apart, the order does not refer to the letter of the petitioner dated 13.05.2025, which was submitted seeking extension of further time of two weeks for seeking legal assistance. The letter dated 13.05.2025 was submitted to respondent No.1 on 13.05.2025 as seen from the endorsement. The same does not find place nor is referred to in the impugned order. The impugned order also does not indicate that the fair opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. 11. Further, the order of the respondent No.1 imposing a major penalty of removal of the petitioner from the post of Mayor, who is duly elected, also suffers from non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Ex-facie, it appears that the allegation that the petitioner has abused his position is not proved by examining any authority and the decision of removal of the petitioner from the office of Mayor is not supported by any reasons, let alone valid and convincing reasons. 12. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed immediately the next day after the petitioner submitting a representation seeking for extension of further time to take legal assistance. The respondent No.1 while invoking quasi judicial powers for removal of petitioner from the post of Mayor, given a fair opportunity of being heard by granting sufficient time and afforded the legal assistance as requested by the petitioner. This ought to have matter would require detailed consideration. There is much legal force in the contention of the petitioner on merits. 13. Indeed, the petitioner has established a prima facie case. Balance of ^ convenience heavily lies in favour of the petitioner rather than No.1 as the petitioner has been respondent serving as Mayor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation for the past 4 years and he is left with only one year of his office. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned G.O. In case the petitioner eventually succeeds in the Writ Petition, if no order is passed at this juncture, the purpose of filing writ petition would be defeated and frustrated Irreparable loss would also be caused to the petitioner which cannot be 7 compensated in any manner as the petitioner has got only one year of term of service and such tenure cannot be extended further by any order. A fortiori, the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.519 of 14. 2025 passed an order that if an adverse order to the interest of the petitioner is passed in any manner, the same shall not be given any effect to for at least a period of two weeks. Ironically, the impugned G.O. doesn’t speak about compliance of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the learned single Judge deserves to be set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to maintain status quo till a fresh adjudication is taken up by following the due process of law and granting a fair opportunity to the petitioner as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-S.V.S.R.MURTHY GISTRAR ECTION OFFICER JOINT f //TRUE COPY// To, Secretary, Municipal Administration [ DilS Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi 2. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Krishna Corporation, Kadapa, YSR Department, State of i, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 4. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, 5. One CC to Sri V. R. Reddy Koyvuri, Kadapa YSR District. Advocate [OPUC] / 6. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admn and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri P. Vengala Reddy, SC for Municipality (OPUC) 8. One CC to Sri Javvaji Sharath Chandra, Advocate (OPUC) 9. Three C.D. Copies. / Cnr ■ ' J HIGH COURT DATED:29/05/2025 JUDGMENT " 2 3 JUN 2025 , »^s<iin’»nt SectigpX^ WA.No.669 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS