APHC010298682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, THE CHIEF JUSTICE^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI- WRIT APPEAL No: 761 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15^ the Letters Patent Act, preferred against the order dated: 09.05.2025 in W.P. No. 12579 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. ^ Between: Smt. Gangireddy Aruna, W/o. Krishna Murthy, Occ; Chairperson, Municipal Council, aged 51 years R/o. D.No., 10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram, Neelamma Cheruvu, Samalakot- 533440. ...PETITIONER- AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. through its PrI., Secretary, M.A & U.D Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi-522 237. 2. The District Collector, Kakinada-533 001. 3. Samalkot Municipal Council, rep., by its Commissioner, Samlakot-533 44. ...RESPONDENTS lA No: 1 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 suspend Ref.Coord(Elecs-l)/103/2025 Dt.29.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 directing not to conduct the meeting on 15.05.2025 at y 11.00A.M. at Municipal Council hall, Samalakot, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.S.R.ANJANEYULU, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD — Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMN & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SMT SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC for MUNICIPALITIES The Court made the following order: APHC010298682025 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 761 of 2025 Smt. Gangireddy Aruna ...Appellant Vs. ...Respondents The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ********** Sri V. S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Smt Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Advocate for appellant Advocate for respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 4th July 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ (Oral): The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated 09.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.12579 of 2025. The controversy before the learned single Judge in the writ petition is that a ‘No Confidence Motion’ was moved against the petitioner, who is the 2. Chairperson of Samalkot Municipality. 2 The issue that arose for consideration before the learned single Judge 3. was whether no confidence motion could be permitted to be carried forward beyond the period prescribed under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”) as also the relevant rules under the Andhra Pradesh (Motion of No Confidence against ChairpersonA/ice Chairperson) Rules, 2008 (for short, “the Rules”). According to Section 46 of the Act, the District Collector is to convene a 4. meeting for the consideration of the motion of no confidence, which has to be not later than 30 days from the date on which the notice under sub- section (1) of Section 46 of the Act was delivered to him. It appears that the notice of no confidence was signed on 02.04.2025 by 5. the members but there is not clarity from the record as to on which date, it was delivered to the District Collector. It also appears from the record that the District Collector then ordered a meeting to be convened on 15.05.2025 by virtue of his proceedings dated 29.04.2025. 6. The case of the petitioner/appellant before the learned single Judge thus was that since the meeting was convened beyond a period of 30 days, it was in gross violation of the mandate as prescribed by Section 46 of the Act and the Rules and therefore, the no confidence motion must lapse. 7. Learned single Judge, by virtue of the order impugned, while rejecting the prayer for interim relief, held that violation of a statutory provision unless it •9 3 % is established and caused prejudice to a particular party, the Courts would not It was also held that with reference to the judgment ordinarily interfere, rendered by the Apex Court in Rajendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh \ whenever a compliant of violation of a mandatory provision is made, the Court should enquire in whose interest is the provision conceived. If it was not conceived in the interest of the public, the question of waiver and of acquiescence may arise subject to the pleadings of the parties. The Court also proceeded to hold that in terms of Section 46(2) of the meeting” obligates the District Collector to call for a meeting period of 30 days does not mandate the holding of meeting within the said period. The requirement of the section was that the District Collector Form-ll notice within 30 days calling for a meeting by giving a 8. Act, “convene a within the should issue minimum time of 15 days. the facts before the learned single Judge, accordingly to stall the consideration of motion In reference to held that it did not find a prima facie case confidence especially in the light of the fact that the motion of no merely a majoritarian exercise and in the interest of vibrant 9. of no confidence was democracy. A pointed question was posed to the learned counsel for the parties as which the District Collector had received the confidence signed by the members. The answer certainly did not 10. to what was the exact date on motion of no 2009 (6) ALD 92 % come forth either from the pleadings of the petitioner nor does it come forth from the order impugned. Even learned counsel for the respondents sought some time to take instructions in the matter. It was also stated that there was no response filed by the official respondents in the writ petition which is still pending before the learned single Judge. In the meantime, the District Collector also is stated to have not taken any decision in the matter as the writ petition is still pending before the Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that unless and until it was established as to what precisely was the date of receipt of a notice of motion which was submitted to the District Collector, the issue cannot be effectively concluded. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner before the learned single Judge, the date of submission of the notice of motion to the Collector is stated to be 02.03.2025/02.04.2025 . There is no clarity. Even the petitioner appears to be not certain as to on which date actually the notice of motion was served in the office of the District Collector. 11. In our opinion, it would be appropriate that if an opportunity is given to the District Collector to submit his response especially with regard to the date of receipt of the notice of motion so that the actual time period could then be calculated which would necessitate lengthy arguments as to whether the provisions of Section 46(2) of the Act requiring the convening of a meeting is 12. mandatory or directory. 5 Be that as it may, we do not find the instant case one which would 13. warrant interference in the order that is passed by the learned single Judge. The matter be considered after the pleadings are completed. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to file the response 14. positively in two (2) weeks. Registry is directed to list W.P.No. 12579 of 2025 before the learned 15. single Judge for consideration immediately thereafter. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur district. 2. The District Collector, Kakinada-533 001 3. The Commissioner, Samalkot Municipal Council, Samlakot- 533 44. 4. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. The Section Officer, Non-Service(Writ Wing) Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. One CC to Sri Vajjhala Satyanarayana Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admonistration & Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. One CC to Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities.[OPUC] 10.Two CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT Registry is directed to list WP.No.12579 of 2025 before the learned Single Judge for consideration Immediately thereafter. DATED:04/07/2025 ORDER WA No. 761 OF 2025 -Qf AND^-% g 15 JUL 2025 ^ Current Section m DISPOSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS