APHC010548572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1098 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-47 [3483] Saripilli Govinda Rajula Venkata Appa Rao ...Appellant Vs. Thynala Vijaya Kumar and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. N. Subba Rao, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing vice Mr. Saranu Phani Teja Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. A. Satya Prasad, Ld. Sr. Counsel, for Mr. Prakash Buddarapu, Mr. Meka Rahul Chowdary, GP for Revenue, Mr. A.S.C. Bose (SC for Municipal Corporations), GP Muncipal Admn and Urban Dev AP CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 14th October, 2025. P C : Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (Motion of No Confidence in Mayor/Dy. Mayor) Rules, 2008, against the appellant herein. The appellant is one of the Corporator who was served with a notice by the Whip dated 14.07.2025, wherein allegations were made that the directions of the Whip were violated. 2. A reply was submitted by the appellant on 21.07.2025, that the notice was not accompanied with the relevant material in terms of the requirement of 2 HCJ & RCJ WA_1098_2025 Rule 17, which envisages that the Presiding Officer shall cause copies of the petition and of the annexure thereto to the member concerned to submit his representation. Rule 17 further envisages that the representation is to be filed by the noticee within seven days from the date of receipt of the said material. 3. It appears that since the requested material was not furnished to the appellant, the Preceding Officer accepted the plea of the appellant and furnished the requisite material and granted time, by virtue of the Collector’s communication dated 25.07.2025, three days time was given to submit a response to the Show Cause Notice. 4. The contention of the appellant is that an appropriate response was indeed filed with the Presiding Officer, within the extended period as the additional material was supplied to the appellant on 28.07.2025 and the explanation was submitted on 01.08.2025. 5. Since no order came to be passed by the Presiding Officer i.e. the District Collector, a Writ Petition came to be filed by the Whip, Thynala Vijay Kumar, bearing W.P.No.19913 of 2025. The prayer so made in the Writ Petition was that a Mandamus be issued to the Presiding Officer to act in accordance with the Rules supra and in particular Rule 18 of the said Rules, apart from questioning the conduct of the elections vide election notice dated 16.07.2025 to the Standing Committee. 6. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the Writ Petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the Presiding Officer i.e. the District 3 HCJ & RCJ WA_1098_2025 Collector to pass appropriate orders in terms of Rule 18 of the GVMC (Motion of No Confidence) Rules of 2008, within a period of four weeks. 7. The only grievance which is expressed by the appellant before us is that although the directions have been issued to pass appropriate orders in the matter, yet an opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been directed to be given by the learned Single Judge with a view to ensure that no prejudice is caused on account of the decision which the Presiding Officer might take, in case there was any issue which required clarification. 8. It is stated that an opportunity of making a representation would be more meaningful if an opportunity of personal hearing was also given to the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the Presiding Officer as also the counsel for petitioner - respondent No.1 have no objection to such an opportunity of personal hearing being afforded to the appellant herein. 10. Be that as it may be, we modify the judgment and order impugned to the limited extent that while deciding the issue in terms of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein and similarly situate other Corporators who have since submitted their representation and explanation to the Show Cause Notice, in regard to the alleged violation of the Whip, be granted an opportunity of personal hearing. However, the time which is otherwise fixed by the learned Single Judge is extended by another four weeks. 4 HCJ & RCJ WA_1098_2025 11. This Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN