I I APHC010395292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19913 OF 2025 Between: Thynala Vijaya Kumar, S/o. Musalayya, Aged about 59 years, Occ YSRCP party WHIP R/o. D.No.29-13-15, Lalith Colony Gardens, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Dabha ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P.. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 3. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Presiding Officer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. 5. Smt Mutthamsetti Priyanka, W/o.Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 6. Sri Lodagala Apparao, S/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 7. Smt Kella Sunitha, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. P': \ 8. Smt Gedala Lavanya, W/o. Not known, age- Major, Occ- Corporator/ Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 9. Sri Gudia Vijay Sai, S/o. Not known, age- Major, Occ- Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 10. Sri Saripilli Govinda Rajulu Venkata Appa Rao, S/o. Not known,age- Major, Occ- CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC,Visakhapatnam. 11. Sri Vurikiti Narayana, S/o. Not known, age- Major, Occ- Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 12. Smt Koduri Appala Ratnam, W/o. Not known, age. Major, Occ. CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 13. Smt Masipogu Marry Jones, , W/o. Not known, age. Major, Occ. CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 14. Smt Alla Lelavathi, W/o. Not known, age. Major, Occ. Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 15. Smt Peddisetti Usha Sri, W/o. Not known, age. Major, Occ. CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 16. Sri Kampa Hanoku, S/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 17. Smt Kantipamu Kameswari, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 18. Smt Chella Rajini, W/o. age Major, Occ Corporator/ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 19. Smt Murru Vani, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 20. Smt Purre Poornasri, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 21. Smt Konathala Sudha, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 22. Sri Boddu Narasimha Patrudu, S/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. / 23. Sri Rajana Rama Rao, S/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorAA/ard Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 24. Sri Thippala Vamsi Reddy, S/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 25. Smt Battu Surya Kumari, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 26. Smt Konathala Neelima, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorAA/ard Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 27. Smt Peela Lakshmi Sowjanya, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorAA/ard Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 28. lllapu Vara Lakshmi, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 29. Smt Kunche Jothsna, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam. 30. Smt Behara Venkata Swarnalatha Siva Devi, W/o. Not known, age Major, Occ CorporatorA/Vard Member, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. 31. Sri Mummana Demudu, S/o. Not known, age Major, Occ Corporator/Ward Member, GVMC Visakhapatnam (All the Respondents are C/o.O/o. Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam). ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent not acting in accordance with the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No. 17495/2025, dated 16.07.2025 and under Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and vitiated by the malafide exercise of power and further declare that the conducting of the elections vide election notice dated 16.07.2025 to the Standing Committee is equally illegal r without passing the orders under Rule 18 but only to facilitate the party in power. 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the election to the Standing Committee issued in Election Notice dated 16.07.2025 pending decision to be taken by the 4th respondent under Rule -18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 in pursuance of the representation given by the petitioner under Rule -14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.31: SRI MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No. 1; GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: SRI A S C BOSE SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION The Court made the following: APHC010395292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 19913/2025 [3457] Between: 1.THYNALA VIJAYA KUMAR, S/0. MUSALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC YSRCP PARTY WHIP R/O. D.NO.29-13-15, LALITH COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. VISAKHAPATNAM, GARDENS, DABHA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.. 2. THE VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 3. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, DISTRICT DISTRICT. 4. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. SMT MUTTHAMSETTI PRIYANKA, ,W/O.NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR,OCC CORPORATOR WARD MEMBER, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. SRI LODAGALA APPARAO, S/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, GVMC MEMBER CORPORATOR/WARD OCC VISAKHAPATNAM. 7. SMT KELLA SUNITHA, W/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, OCC CORPORATOR/WARDMEMBER, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM. 8. SMT GEDALA LAVANYA, W/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE- MAJOR, CORPORATORAA/ARD GVMC MEMBER, OCC- VISAKHAPATNAM. 9. SRI GUDIA VIJAY SAi, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE- MAJOR, OCC- CORPORATORA/VARD MEMBER, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM. 10.SRI SARIPILLI GOVINDA RAJULU VENKATA APPA RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN,AGE- MAJOR, OCC- CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER, GVMC,VISAKHAPATNAM. 11 SRI VURIKITI NARAYANA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE- MAJOR, GVMC, MEMBER, CORPORATOR/WARD OCC- WP.No.19913 of 2025 VISAKHAPATNAM. 12.SMT KODURI APPALA RATNAM W/0 MAJOR. OCC. VISAKHAPATNAM. 13.SMT MASIPOGU MARRY JONES MAJOR, OCC. VISAKHAPATNAM. known, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ic member, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM OCC.PEDDISETTI USHA SRI, W/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE. MAJOR CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM. tzivictK. bVMC, NOT KNOWN, AGE CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER, GVMC W/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER, GVMC HANOKU, S/0. not KNOWN. AGE MAJOR OCC CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM KAMESWARI, W/o! NOT KNOWN^^^^ MAJOR, OCC CORPORATOR/WARD VISAKHAPATNAM.- CHELLA MEMBER, GVMC 18.SMT Rajini, w/0. age major orr dn ^*^^’^‘^^'^T0RA/VARD member, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM known, age major OCC on MEMBER, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM 20.SMT PURRE POORNASRI, W/0. NOT KNOWN OCC CORPORATOR/WARD AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM. 21.SMT KONATHALA SUDHA, W/0. NOT KNOWN OCC CORPORATOR/WARD AGE MAJOR. MEMBER, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM. patrudu, s/0. not known age vTsSap^?n"am. member 23. SRI RAJANA RAMA RAO, S/0. NOT KNOWN OCC CORPORATOR/WARD GVMC AGE MAJOR, MEMBER, GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM. 24. SRI THIPPALA VAMSI REDDY MAJOR, OCC VISAKHAPATNAM.’ 25.SMT BATTU SURYA KUMARI MAJOR, OCC VISAKHAPATNAM. NEELIMA, W/0. NOT KNOWN. AGE MAJOR OCC CORPORATOR/WARD S/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER GVMC W/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER GVMC, MEMBER, lakshmi sowjanya, w/o. not known age VIS^KHAP^^N^AM. MEMBER ' GVMC VISAKHAPATNAM. GVMC, 28.ILLAPU VARA LAKSHMI, W/O. NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, OCC WP.No.19913of 2025 CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM. 29.SMT KUNCHE JOTHSNA, W/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, CORPORATOR/WARD * occ GVMC MEMBER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 30.SMT BEHARA VENKATA SWARNALATHA SIVA DEVI, W/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, OCC CORPORATOR/WARD MEMBER, GVMC, VISAKHAPATNAM. 31.SRI MUMMANA DEMUDU, S/0. NOT KNOWN, AGE MAJOR, CORPORATOR/WARD VISAKHAPATNAM (ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE C/0.0/0. GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM). MEMBER, GVMC OCC ...RESPONDENT(S); Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent not acting in accordance with the directions issued by this Honble Court in W.P.No. 17495/2025, dated 16^07.2025 and under Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and vitiated by the malafide exercise of power and further declare that the conducting of the elections vide election notice dated 16.07.2025 to the Standing Committee is equally illegal without passing the orders under Rule 18 but only to facilitate the party in power and pass 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance to the election to the Standing Committee issued in Election Notice dated 16.07.2025 pending decision to be taken by the 4th respondent under Rule -18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 in pursuance of the representation given by the petitioner under Rule -14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such o Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PRAKASH BUDDARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: UAH WP.No.19913 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.19913 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondent No.4 in following the directions of this Court passed in WP.No.17495of 2025, dated 16.07.2025under Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 and seeks a consequential direction to declare the conduct of elections of Standing Committee as illegal. 2. The petitioner is the party WHIP of YSRCP and is authorized to issue WHIP. The WHIP dated 10.04.2025 was not followed by respondents 5 to 31. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.04.2025 to the 3^*^ respondent seeking to disqualify the respondents 5 to 31 as they had acted contrary to the party interest. As no further action was taken up, the petitioner filed WP.No.17495 of 2025. The standing counsel for the respondents therein submitted that the 4^'^ respondent had issued show cause notice to the concerned persons to submit their representations within a period of seven days. This Court recorded the submissions of the respondents and disposed off the writ petition by directing the 4**^ respondent therein to pass appropriate orders WP,No.19913 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence), Rules, 2008. 3. The 2’^'^ respondent had issued show cause notice dated 14.07.2025 to the respondents 5 to 31.. The 2"^ respondent instead of deciding the issue in terms of Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence), Rules, 2008 has issued election notice for election of a standing committee. 4. It is submitted that the decision with regard to disqualification of the respondents 5 to 31 was pending adjudication by the 2"*^ respondent. The 4*'' respondent has gone ahead and issued the election notice for election of the standing committee. The respondents 5 to 31 have no moral and ethical right to continue as members of the Corporation having defied the WHIP issued by the party to which they belong. 5. Sri. Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2^^ respondent is duty bound to follow the No Confidence Motion Rules and decision ought to be taken in a time bound manner. It is also submitted that the official respondents in order to facilitate tl;ie ideals of the ruling dispensation have not acted in accordance with the Rules and Law. It is also submitted that if the 2"*^ respondent disqualifies the WP.No.19913 of 2025 respondents 5 to 31 there cannot be any occasion for issuance of an election notice. 6. The learned senior counsel further submits that when the respondents 5 to 31 do not qualify as members of the Corporation on account of defying the WHIP, they ought not to be permitted, to participate in the election of the standing committee. 7. The learned senjor counsel further subrnits that the petition filed under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 has complied the requirements of Rule 15. It is submitted that the 2^^ respondent was satisfied that Rule 16 was also complied and as such, show cause notice dated 14.07.2025 was issued. It is further submitted that this Court directed the 2^^ respondent to pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible. It is also submitted that the District Collector is aiding the election of the standing committee by delaying the passing of orders in terms of Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008. 8. The learned senior counsel further submits that the 2^^ respondent cannot sit over the matter by referring to Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 and stating that there is no time prescribed gjider Rule 18 of the GVMC WP.No.19913of2025 (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 for the 2"*^ respondent to pass orders. It is also submitted that once the 2"^ respondent was convinced of the requirement for considering the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 for passing appropriate orders has issued the show cause notice and called upon the respondents 5 to 31 to submit their response within the period of seven days as mandated under Rule 17 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008, the 2'^^ respondent ought to have expeditiously pass appropriate orders on the petition of the petitioner. 9. It is also submitted that the 2^^ respondent granted further time of three days when the respondents 5 to 31 sought for additional information and that such procedure is not contemplated under the Rules. It is submitted that the purpose of disqualification proceedings cannot be frustrated by the 2"^^^ respondent only to aid the Ruling Dispensation. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on Padi Kaushik Reddy Etc., Vs. The State of Telangana and others Etc.,'' the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt r with the issue of the disqualification proceedings pending before 1 2025 see Online Se 1576 WP No.19913 of 2025 the Speaker and directed the Speaker to conclude the disqualification proceedings pending against the 10 MLAs as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. /=■ 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that when disqualification proceedings are initiated it is essential for the authority considering the petitions of disqualification to pass t necessary orders within a time frame. Failure to pass orders in an expeditious manner would amount to uttering down the spirit of the disqualification proceedings. 12. No counters are filed by any of the respondents. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted the written instructions and submitted that the writ petition can be disposed off duly taking into account the written instructions. It is submitted that the respondent had issued the election notification and the 2'^'^ respondent is the competent authority to deal with the No Confidence Motion. It is also submitted that as per GOMs.No.836, dated 03.12.2008 there is no time fixed for disposal of the petition filed under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 and that there is no willful delay on part of the 2'^'^ respondent in dealing with the petition filed under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, WP.No.19913 of 202s will be passed 2008. It is also submitted that orders expeditiously. 13. The learned standing counsel further submits that standing committee election notification was issupd to take care of the day to day administration and for sanction and execution of the corporation works in the interest of public. It is also stated by the learned standing counsel that the election of standing committee is not related/affiliated to any political party. It is also submitted that the present standing committee would expire on 06.08.2025 and the new standing committee requires to be elected. Accordingly, the 3'"^ respondent has issued the election notice. It is also submitted that the proceedings pending before the 2^^ respondent are distinct or they should not come in the way of the election to the standing committee. The 3'"' respondent also has not filed counter, however, the learned standing counsel submitted that the written instructions be taken on record and submissions be taken for disposal of the writ petition. 14. Sri.K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.31 submits that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is submitted that this Court had directed the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, WP.No.19913of 2025 2008 while disposing the WP.No.17495 of 2025 on 16.07.2025 and as per the writ rules the respondents would have to comply with the said orders within a period of 60 days. 15. It is also submitted that the 2"^ respondent had supplied additional documents as required by the respondent No.31 on 31.07.2025 and that the disqualification proceedings are not summary in nature and cannot be hurriedly concluded. It is also submitted that the election process once initiated cannot be interfered with except in exceptional cases. 16. Learned senior counsel for the respondent No.31 submits that this is not an exceptional case where this court can exercise the jurisdiction under 226 of Constitution’of India and interfere in the election process which had already commenced. 17. The learned senior counsel places reliance on Darshan Bohini Vs. State of telangana and another^, the High Court of Telangana held that the standing committee election process cannot be interfered with and dismissed the writ petition. Subhash Desai Vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and others^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that pendency of disqualification proceedings would not curb the right 2 2021 see Online TS 1470 3 (2024) 2 see 719 WP.No.19913 of 2025 of an MLA to participate in the proceedings of the House and the validity of the proceedings of the House during pendency of disqualification petition is not subject to the outcome of the disqualification petitions. 18, The learned senior counsel submits fhat the writ petition be disposed off on merits. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that there is no intentional delay on part of respondent No.2. It is also submitted that the writ petition is also not maintainable as when there is no time frame prescribed under the Rules for the 2^^ respondent to orders under Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No pass Confidence) Rules, 2008, time frame cannot be imposed on the 2"^ respondent. It is also submitted that principles of natural justice would be followed and prays, for dismissing the writ petition. 19. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply submits that Rule -17 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 contemplates the procedure and copy of the complaint and the annexure are to be served on the respondents 5 to 31. It is submitted that no explanation was given within seven days and the 2^^ respondent ought to have proceeded WP.No.19913 of 2025 5 to 31 have no by treating that the respondents explanation to offer and passed orders accordingly. 16 and 17 of the GVMC (Motion of further 20. It is submitted that Rule 15 No Confidence) Rules, 2008 do not permit the Presiding Officers to the seven days for grant three more days in addition submission of the explanation/reply. It judgment relied upon applicable to the facts of the case as dealt with the challenge to standing committee. to is also submitted that the by the respondent No.31 cannot be made the Telangana High Court the election notification of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, for the respondents 1 and 2, counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the for the respondent No.31. 21. Heard the learned senior learned Government Pleader learned standing learned senior cdunsel appearing declaration to the extent of declaring accordance with the WP.No.17495 of 2025, dated 22. The petitioner is seeking a that the 4**^ respondent has not acted in directions of this Court in 16.07.2025 and passed orders in accordance with Rule 18 of the Confidence) Rules, 2008. A consequential GVMC (Motion of No direction to declare conducting of elections to the standing committee as illegal. WP.No.19913 of 2025 a petition under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 before the 4*'' respondent seeking to initiate action against the respondents 5 to 31 under the provisions of GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008. It is alleged that the respondents 5 31 have violated the WHIP notice dated 17.04.2025 appropriate action was sought in accordance with Rule 18 (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008. 23. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed to and 24. It is also not in dispute that the 4‘^ respondent had issued show cause notice on 14.07.2025 calling upon the Ward Members to submit their explanation/representation within a period of seven days. Rule 17 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 mandates issuance of seven days time for the member concerned to submit his representation. 25. The short point for consideration is'whether the competent respondent authority can protract taking a decision in terms of Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 without any specific time schedule. Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 does not specify any time frame for passing an order under Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008. The stand of the respondents is that WP.No. 19913 Of 2025 since there is no time is specified reasonable time would have to be allowed for'the 4^'^ respondent to pass orders. 26. It is also the stand of the 4*^ respondent that there is no intentional delay on part of 4**^ respondent and that a decision would be taken as expeditiously as possible. In these circumstances of counters of 1 to 31 is not necessary as the 4^'^ respondent has to perform his statutory duty in accordance with law. The 4*'^ respondent is also not denying the statutory duty of passing orders under Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008. The written instructions are also categorically cleared that orders would be passed expeditiously. As such, counter of respondent No.4 is also not necessary for adjudicating this matter. 27. For determining as to what would be the reasonable time for deciding on the disqualification of a member when a petition under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 is filed before the competent authority, it is pertinent to reproduce the Rules 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008. Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules. 2008: Where a member belonging to any recognized political party votes or abstains from voting in a WP. No. 19913 of 2025 meeting convened to consider a motion of no confidence in Chairperson / Vice-chairperson in disobedience of the whip issued by such political party to issue a whip may file a petition within three days from the date of the meeting before the Presiding Officer for disqualifying the member to hold office. Rule 15 of the GVMC (Motion of Nn Confidence^ Rules, 2008 - Every petition filed under rule 14 (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies ; and (b) shall be accompanied by copies of the documentary evidence showing the service of the whip on the member concerned. Rule 16 of the GVMC fMotion nf No Rules. 2008 On receipt of a petition under rule 14, the Presiding Officer shall consider whether the petition complies with the requirements of rule 15. If the petition does not comply with the requirements of rule 15, he shall dismiss the petition and intimate the accordingly. Rule 17 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidencp^ Rules. 2008: Confidence) petitioner If the petition complies with the requirements of rule 15, the Presiding Officer shall cause copies of the petition and of the annexures thereto be forwarded to the member concerned representation in this matter within seven days from the date of receipt of the said material. to submit his Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Rules. 2008 : The Presiding Officer shall consider the petition filed under rule 14 and the representation received from the member under Rule 17 and pass a speaking order in the matter of cessation of membership for disobedience of the whip. If no representation is received from the member, the Presiding Officer shal pass an order on the basis of material available. A copy of the order shall be forwarded to Confidence) WP.No.19913of2025 the petitioner, member concerned, Commissioner of the Municipality concerned and the District Collector. Where a member s disqualified, he shall cease to hold office and the resultant vacancy shall be filled as a casual vacancy. Rule 19 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008: Where a member is disqualified to hold office for disobedience of the party whip, he may apply to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the office of municipality is situated for a decision. 28. The petition should be filed before the competent authoritywithin three days from the date of the meeting before the presiding officer for disqualifying the member from the office. The presiding officer should be satisfied that the petition filed satisfies the condition of Rule 15 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 and thereafter issue show cause notice to the concerned to submit his representation within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the material. 29. Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 mandates the presiding officer to pass a speaking order by considering the petition filed under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 along with the representation. The presiding officer is also empowering to pass orders if no representation is received from the member on the basis of material available. min WP.No.19913of2025 30. On careful reading of Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008, it is evident that the presiding officer would have to grant seven days time for submission of the representation by the concerned member. The concerned member would have to essentially submit his representation within seven days. The Rules do not permit any extension of time for the member to submit his representation beyond the period of seven days. 31. The Rules also do not permit the conipetent authority to grant any extension of time for submission of a representation by the concerned member. In other words the competent authority as well pass a speaking order on the eighth day of serving of the show cause notice on the concerned member. can 32. Democracy is the heart beat of our Society. A member elected a particular symbol of a party would have to adhere to the ideals of that particular party and support the decisions of the party. The citizens of exercise their franchise and elected their representative(s). The on elected representative(s) cannot subsequently take unilateral decisions and act in an independent manner which is against the interest of the party on whose ticket the individual got elected. WP.No.19913 of 2025 33. Insofar as deciding the disqualification petitions by the District Collector Cum Presiding Officer would have to essentially follow the Rules framed. When the Rules mandated the concerned members to submit their representation within seven days and also empowered the Presiding Officer to pass orders by drawing adverse inference in the event any of the member does not submit his representation within seven days for passing orders. The presiding officer can safely conclude the proceedings initiated under the Rules by passing necessary orders under Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 within the shortest possible time. The presiding officer could as well pass an order from eight day onwards. In the present case on hand, the presiding officer has on request of some of the members of passed on additional information and granted three more days time, though the Rule^ do not permit such an endeavor. 34. The disqualified member can approach the jurisdictional District Court under Rule 19 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 against the order of disqualification. The 4^*^ respondent has to pass orders within an acceptable reasonable period of time after expiry of seven days of time granted to the concerned member for submitting a representation. At any rate, WP.No.19913of202^ cannot stretch beyond a period of the reasonable time one month as the Rules mandate grant of only seven days time for submission of representation. The competent authority would have to essentially pass appropriate orders within a period of one month, after .receipt of representations from the members in terms of Rule 17 of the GVMC Confidence) Rules, 2008. concerned (Motion of No 35. Insofar as the prayer of the petitioner seeking to set aside the election notice is concerned such by this Court, however, the status of the elected standing committee would be subject to the orders passed by the Presiding Officer & Collector a direction cannot be passed members of the outcome of the and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in the proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008. 36. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that it is the statutory duty of the respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that the spirit of democracy is always upheld and delay in passing orders in terms of Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 would only lead to extinguishing the faith on the very system. 37. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off directing the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 18 WP.No.19913 of 2025 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules, 2008 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions penqlir^g, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department, State of AP, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P.. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam District. The Presiding Officer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam. One CC to Sri. Prakash Buddarapu Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Meka Rahul Chowdary Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. A S C Bose SC for Municipal Corporation [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Admin and Urban Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies GSC 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. » '■ ■ - 4-. HIGH COURT DATED: 12/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19913 OF 2025 & o 2 3 SEP ^ Currents *o DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS