Adapa Venkata Ramana v. The Presiding Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer
WP/26693/2018 · 2025-01-09
V Sujatha
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35434 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 35434 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
APHC010562532018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 26693/2018 Between: Adapa Venkata Ramana ...PETITIONER AND The Presiding Officer And Revenue Divisional Officer and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M/S BHARADWAJ ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities
3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) The Court made the following:
2
ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 1st respondent contained in Rc.No.H.277/2018, dated 28.07.2018, postponing the no confidence motion relating to the office of Vice Chairperson of Gudivada Municipality from 28.07.2018 to another date, is arbitrary and illegal and further declare that due to non- conduct of meeting scheduled to take place on 28.07.2018, the requisition of the 4th respondent and others for conducting the meeting of no confidence has lapsed and direct the 1st respondent not to conduct any meeting of no confidence pursuant to the requisition of the 4th respondent and others dated 04.07.2018....”
2. When the matter came up for admission on 31.07.2018, this Court passed the following interim order:
“….It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, there cannot be any postponement of the elections and the impugned action is contrary to the said provision of law. This issue requires consideration by this Court. In view of the same, there shall be interim stay of further steps pursuant to the proceedings in Rc.H.277/2018, dated 28.07.2018.”
3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5, furnished a copy of instructions of the Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, wherein it is stated that the term of the then Council was already completed by 13.02.2019, and the petitioner herein passed away on 18.03.2022. Therefore, no further action is required in this matter, and prays to close the writ petition. 3
4. Recording the above instructions, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Date: 09.01.2025 KGR