APHC010513042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1083 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-4 [3446] Smt. Reddappagari Madhavi Reddy ...Appellant Vs. K. Suresh Babu and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra Advocate for Respondents : Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 16th October 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated 24.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.18445 of 2025. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of the Kadapa Municipal Corporation dated 30.06.2025 wherein he set aside the resolution of the Municipal Council of Kadapa dated 20.06.2025 on the ground firstly that there was a lack of proper notice under Section 88(h) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), secondly, that the meeting was not held in the officially designated location and thirdly, that despite repeated oral requests made by 2 the Municipal Secretary and Additional Commissioner to the Mayor to attend the meeting at the Council Hall, the request was not honoured. In addition to this, it was held that there was a violation of quorum requirement and also that the proceedings of the meeting were improperly recorded. The aforementioned decision of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation was challenged in the writ petition. 3. The learned single Judge, by virtue of the order impugned, held that the Commissioner had no power to pass the order impugned in the writ petition and was beyond his jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing for some time, did admit that indeed the Commissioner did not have the power to cancel the resolution passed by the council on the said date and that there was provision under Section 679-A of the Act whereby, the Government either suo moto or on the representation of the Commissioner, the Mayor or any of the councellors could cancel the resolution passed or order issued in that regard. 5. Since the legal position is not denied, that the Commissioner had no power to set aside or suspend the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, in that view, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned single Judge. 3 6. The second part of the direction of the learned single Judge’s order is with regard to the implementation of the resolution passed in the General Body Meeting. 7. Insofar as the second part of the direction of the learned single Judge is concerned, where the resolution passed in the General Body Meeting is directed to be implemented, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that such a direction would take away the power of the Government to scrutinize the resolution of the council under Section 679-A of the Act. 8. While the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant may sound appealing in the first brush, yet, we cannot ignore the fact that the decision of the council was taken as early as on 20.06.2025. Much time has elapsed since the passing of the resolution till date. The Government, it appears, has not exercised its power under Section 679-A of the Act suo moto neither has any representation being made by the Commissioner or any of the councellors to the Government to exercise such a power. 9. We are in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. V. R. Reddy Kovvuri that assuming that there was any power with the Government to interfere with the decision of the council, the Government, not having done so, the decision of the council cannot be permitted to remain in a state of flux and therefore, the learned single Judge was right in issuing directions for its implementation. 4 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the present Writ Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AMD 5 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1083 of 2025 Dt : 16.10.2025 AMD