-1- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 *HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION No.12579 OF 2025 %10.10.2025 #Gangireddy Aruna, w/o.Krishna Murthy, Chairperson, Municipal Council, aged: 51 years, R/o.D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram, Neelamma Cheruvu, Samalakot-533 440. …Petitioner And: $1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Prl.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-533 440. ...Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, The learned Senior Counsel Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad ^Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing for R.1 Learned Government Pleader for Revenue For R.2 Learned Standing Counsel for R.3 +WRIT PETITION No.17813 OF 2025 %10.10.2025 #Rednam Suneetha, W/o. Venkat Rao, Aged: 48 years, Councilor of Ward No.28, Municipal Council of Samalakot, Municipality, R/o.D.No.9-7-17, Nagisettivari Street, Samalkot, East Godavari District- 533 440. …Petitioner And: -2- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 $1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Prl.Secretary, M.A. & U.D. Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi-522 237. 2. The District Collector, Kakinada District at Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District. 4. Samalkot Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Samlakot, Kakinada District. 5. Smt. Gangireddy Aruna, w/o. Krishnmurthy, Age: 51 years, R/o. D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram Neelamma Cheruvu, Samlkot, Kakinada District. ...Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu ^Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader for MA & UD appearing for R.1 Learned Government Pleader for Revenue For R.2 & R.3 Learned Standing Counsel for R.4 <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: -3- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WRIT PETITION No.12579 OF 2025 Gangireddy Aruna, w/o.Krishna Murthy, Chairperson, Municipal Council, aged: 51 years, R/o.D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram, Neelamma Cheruvu, Samalakot-533 440. …Petitioner And: 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Prl.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-533 440. ...Respondents WRIT PETITION No.17813 OF 2025 Rednam Suneetha, W/o. Venkat Rao, Aged: 48 years, Councilor of Ward No.28, Municipal Council of Samalakot, Municipality, R/o.D.No.9-7-17, Nagisettivari Street, Samalkot, East Godavari District- 533 440. …Petitioner And: 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Prl.Secretary, M.A. & U.D. Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi-522 237. 2. The District Collector, Kakinada District at Kakinada. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District. 4. Samalkot Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Samlakot, Kakinada District. -4- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 5. Smt. Gangireddy Aruna, w/o. Krishnmurthy, Age: 51 years, R/o. D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram Neelamma Cheruvu, Samlkot, Kakinada District. ...Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgments? 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N -5- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 APHC010251742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12579/2025 Between: Gangireddy Aruna ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Learned Senior Counsel Sri V.VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP WRIT PETITION NO: 17813/2025 Between: Rednam Suneetha ...PETITIONER AND -6- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO The Court made the following: -7- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.12579 OF 2025 & WRIT PETITION No.17813 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioner in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 is challenging the Ref.Coord (Elecs-1)/103/2025, dated 29.04.2025, issued as Form II by the 2nd respondent as illegal. 2. The petitioner is the Chairperson of the 3rd respondent Municipal Council. The Council members issued a notice in Form I on 02.04.2025, moving the motion of no confidence on the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice in Form II and duly informed the council members of convening the meeting on 15.05.2025 vide the impugned proceedings. 3. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.12579 of 2025, submits that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent in issuing the Form II notice is in gross violation of Sections 46(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities act, 1965 [for short, „the Act, 1965’]. It is submitted that Section 46(1) of the Act, 1965 mandates annexing a copy of the proposed motion along with the Form. The motion of no confidence ought to be annexed along with Form I. -8- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 4. It is submitted that, as per the admission of the District Collector in the counter, a copy of the proposed motion was not annexed to the Form II notice. It is further submitted that the Collector could not have convened a meeting beyond the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Form I notice. It is also submitted that section 46(2) of the Act, 1965 would require the District Collector to convene a meeting within 30 days of receipt of the motion of no confidence. It is submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondents is in gross violation of Sections 46(1) and (2) of the Act, 1965. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent in the counter also admits that a copy of the proposed motion was not annexed to Form II. However, the meeting was conducted on 15.05.2025 and 25 members attended the meeting and expressed their no confidence on the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that this Court, vide an order dated 09.05.2025, declined to grant stay on the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence, which was scheduled on 15.05.2025. However, it was made clear that the motion of no confidence will be subject to further orders in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, W.A. No.761 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of on 04.07.2025 by duly observing that there was a discrepancy in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner before this Court regarding the date of submission of the notice of motion to -9- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 the Collector as stated to be on 02.03.2025/02.04.2025. On account of the said ambiguity, an opportunity was granted to the District Collector to submit his response with regard to the date of receipt of the notice of motion for determining the actual time period and as to whether the provisions of Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965 are mandatory or directory to be determined in the writ petition. 6. The Form I notice was received by the Collector on 02.04.2025. Form II notice was issued on 29.04.2025, and the meeting was convened on 15.05.2025. There is no dispute on these dates. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the 2nd petitioner ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone 1 , wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dealt with the distinction between mandatory rule and directory rule, which was held that a mandatory rule must be strictly observed, whereas in case of directory rule, substantial compliance may be sufficient to achieve the object regarding which the rule is enacted. 8. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of 1AIR 1980 SC 303 -10- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 C.Puttaswamy, etc., v. Smt. Prema etc.,2 wherein the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court, while considering the issue of no confidence motion against the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan in terms of Section 47(3) of Karnataka ZillaParishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act (20 of 1985), held that Section 47 of the Karnataka ZillaParishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act (20 of 1985) is a complete Code in itself, deliberately provided by the legislature having regard to the importance of the elective office of the Pradhan and Upa-pradhan, the need to ensure their stability in office and, thus, to promote the objectives of Mandal Panchayats. Section 47 is the only provision that applies to a „No-confidence‟ motion against the Pradhan or Upa-pradhan. 9. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of VanchaVeera Reddy and another v. District Co-operative Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and others3, wherein at paragraph 47 the Hon‟ble Division Bench held that, “47......(a) G.O. Ms. No.37, Agriculture & Co-operation (Co-op.IV) Department, dated 28.1.2002 is not a mere executive order, but duly amended the rules in exercise 2AIR 1992 Karnataka 356 32010(3) ALD 526 (DB) -11- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 of the statutory rule making power through the statutory notification duly published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. (b) Under Section 34-A of the Act read with Rule 24-A of the Rules, service of the notice of the meeting along with a copy of the motion expressing no confidence in the prescribed form, despatch of such notice for service with a gap of not less than fifteen clear days between the date of despatch of the notice and the date of meeting (with such date of despatch and date of meeting being excluded in computing the gap period) and such despatch for service of notice only in any of the alternatives prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 24-A and in no other manner, are mandatory and any violation of any of such mandatory requirements will make any such meeting or the proceedings thereunder invalid and illegal, (c) However, if there is only shortfall in the period from the date of service of notice on a member as prescribed and the date of meeting, the meeting or the proceedings thereunder will become invalid only on some prejudice to such member being proved, and (d) Any cessation of membership under Section 21-A or Section 21-AA or Section 21-B of the Act is not automatic, but is subject to the decision of the General Body of the Society on the recommendations of the Managing Committee, though any resolution of the General Body in favour of cessation of membership will take effect from the date of disqualification or cessation.” 10. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases under -12- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (SuoMotu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020)4, wherein, at paragraph 20, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that, “20. Section 143 of the Act mandates that the provisions of summary trial of the Code shall apply "as far as may be" to trials of complaints under Section 138. Section 258 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to stop the proceedings at any stage for reasons to be recorded in writing and pronounce a judgment of acquittal in any summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint. Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to a summons case instituted on a complaint. Therefore, Section 258 cannot come into play in respect of the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. The judgment of this Court in Meters & Instruments 13 insofar as it conferred power on the trial court to discharge an accused is not good law. Support taken from the words "as far as may be" in Section 143 of the Act is inappropriate. The words "as far as may be" in Section 143 are used only in respect of applicability of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code and the summary procedure to be followed for trials under Chapter XVII. Conferring power on the court by reading certain words into provisions is impermissible. A Judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policy- making might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by 4(2021) 16 SCC 116 -13- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 way of creation. The Judge's duty is to interpret and apply the law, not to change it to meet the Judge‟s idea of what justice requires. The Court cannot add words to a statue or read words into it which are not there.” 11. It is submitted that the statue under section 46(1) of the Act, 1965 mandates the service of Form II along with a copy of the proposed motion. Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965 fixes a time frame for consideration of the motion on a date which shall not be later than 30 days from the date of notice referred to under sub-section (1) and 15 days advance notice to be given to the members. Having failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 46(1) and 46(2) of the Act, 1965, the entire exercise would have to be set aside and the impugned notice dated 29.04.2025 would have to be held as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1965 and G.O.Ms. No.835 dt.03.12.2008. 12. The writ petitioner in W.P. No.17813 of 2025 submits that the no confidence motion was passed against the writ petitioner in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 by 25 members on 15.05.2025 and the proceedings were not forwarded by the presiding officer to the 2nd respondent for taking further steps to remove the petitioner from the office of the Chairperson of Samalkota Municipal Council. The Revenue Divisional Officer could not forward the council resolution -14- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 dated 15.05.2025 on account of the pendency of the W.P. No.12579 of 2025. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Chairperson would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file W.P. No.17813 of 2025, as the issue is pending adjudication before this Court and without considering the observation of this Court while declining to grant stay on the meeting scheduled on 15.05.2025, the writ petition could not have been filed. 14. I.A. No.2 of 2025 is filed in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 whereby one of the Councillor of Ward No.28 sought to be impleaded as a party respondent as the proposed respondent is confident of securing majority from the members of the Council for being elected as the next Chairperson provided further orders are passed removing the petitioner as Chairperson. 15. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the intention of Form II was sufficient to be conveyed and the same was duly considered and accepted. It is also submitted that it is for the members of the Council to object with regard to the non-compliance of Section 46(1) or 46(2) of the Act, 1965. 16. The learned standing counsel for the Municipality also submits that soon after the receipt of Form I notice, the 2nd respondent convened -15- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 the meeting and issued Form II notice on 29.04.2025. It is submitted that the meeting was convened within 30 days of receipt of Form I notice. As such there is no violation of Rule 46(2) of the Act, 1965. 17. Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.17813 of 2025 and the learned Government Pleader for the State and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. 18. Perused the record. 19. The short points for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned notice Ref.Coord (Elecs-1)/103/2025, dated 29.04.2025 in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 are issued in contravention of Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965? (ii) Whether it is mandatory for annexing the copy of the proposed motion along with the relevant Form to the District Collector? POINTS (i) and (ii): 20. To decide the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Section 46 of the Act, 1965, which reads as under: “46. Motion of no confidence in Chairperson/Vice- Chairperson: (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson otherwise than directly elected or Vice- Chairperson may be made by giving a written notice -16- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 of intention to move the motion, in such form as may be specified by the Government, signed not less than one half of the total number of members of the Council having right to vote, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the District Collector concerned in accordance with the procedure prescribed: Provided that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within three (3) years of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved: Provided further that if the motion is not carried by two- third majority as prescribed or if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same person shall be made until after the expiration of one year from the date of such first meeting: Provided also that the membership of a suspended member shall also be taken into consideration for computing the total number of members and he shall also be entitled to vote in a meeting held under this section. (2) The District Collector shall, then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of Municipal Council on the date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (1) was delivered to him. He shall give to the Members, Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson as the case may be and the Ex- Officio Members, notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting of such meeting in such form as may be prescribed by the Government and such notice shall be delivered as may be specified. Explanation:- In computing the period of thirty days specified in this sub-section, the period during which a -17- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 stay order, if any, issued by a competent Court on a petition filed against a notice under sub-section (1) is in force shall be excluded. (3) The District Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer nominated by the District Collector (hereinafter referred to as presiding officer) shall preside at such meeting. The quorum for such meeting shall be two- thirds of the total number of members. If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting, there is no quorum for the meeting, the Presiding Officer shall adjourn the meeting to some other time on the same date and notify the same in the notice board of the Council. If there is no quorum at the adjourned time of the same day, no further meeting shall be convened for consideration of that motion and the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under sub- section (1) shall lapse. (4) As soon as the meeting convened under this section commences, the said presiding officer shall read only the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. The voting shall be by show of hands duly obeying the party whip given by such functionary of the recognized political party in the manner prescribed: Provided that a member voting under this sub-section in disobedience of the party whip shall cease to hold office forthwith and the vacancy caused by such cessation shall be filled as a casual vacancy. (5) A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon shall be forwarded immediately on the termination of the meeting by the said presiding officer to the District Collector. The District Collector shall forward the same along with his remarks to the Government. -18- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 (6) If the motion is carried with the support of two-thirds majority of the total number of the members including the ex-officio members as on the date of the meeting, the Government shall by notification remove the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson as the case may be from office and the resultant vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as a casual vacancy. Explanation I:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of this section the expression "total number of members" means, all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned including the ex-officio members. Explanation II:- For the purposes of the section, in the determination of two-thirds of the total number of members, any fraction below 0.5 shall be ignored and any fraction of 0.5 or above shall be taken as one.” 21. Sub-section (4) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 makes its mandatory for the presiding officer to read out the motion for consideration for which the meeting has been convened. This section makes it clear that the presiding officer would have to read the motion for which the meeting is convened and put the motion to vote without any debate. This provision makes it amply clear that the motion of confidence would have to be essentially furnished along with Form II. 22. On a query from this Court as to what was proposed motion which was annexed to Form I or Form II, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.17813 of 2025 fairly concedes that the proposed motion is not annexed to Ex.P.1 i.e., Form I. The -19- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 proposed motion is not placed before this Court by anybody including the official respondents. 23. Insofar as the compliance of Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965 is concerned, the statute mandates the District Collector to convene a meeting for considering the motion at the office of the Municipal Council within 30 days from the date of receipt of Form I notice. The District Collector ought to convene meeting within 30 days from the date of receipt of Form I notice by giving 15 clear days excluding the date of notice and the date of the proposed meeting. The District Collector ought to convene the meeting for the presiding officer to read out the motion for consideration for which the meeting has been convened. Convening the meeting would imply scheduling and fixing the date. When the statue mandates the District Collector to convene the meeting not later than 30 days from the date of which the notice under sub-section (1) was delivered to him, he could not have issued the impugned notice in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 scheduling the meeting beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of Form I notice. 24. When the District Collector and the Commissioner have categorically admitted in their counters that when the copy of the proposed motion was not annexed to Form II notice, it is not known as to what was read out on 15.05.2025 for passing of the Resolution. -20- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 25. The provisions of Sections 46(1), 46(2), and 46(4) of the Act, 1965, prescribe a mandatory procedure that is required to be followed. The Act, 1965, has prescribed the procedure to be followed for the motion of no confidence of the Chairperson/ Vice Chairperson. The said procedure would have to be scrupulously followed and any deviation from the said procedure would render the exercise as a nullity in the eye of law. When a major decision of removing a person from the post of Chairperson or Vice Chairperson, the procedure as prescribed under law would have to be essentially followed. The Act does not leave any scope for the authorities to follow any other procedure and brush aside the procedure prescribed under law. It is not the simple case of claiming that majority members were aware of the purpose of the meeting convened on 15.05.2025 and that the resolution was passed by the majority members against the petitioner. There is no waiver for the procedure prescribed under the Act. 26. As per Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965, and on the facts of this case, the District Collector received Form I on 02.04.2025. He should have convened and held the meeting on or before 02.05.2025. The District Collector ought to have issued the notice of convening the meeting on 16.04.2025. Admittedly, the meeting was held beyond the statutory limit on 15.05.2025. -21- W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025 Date of order:10.10.2025 27. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings would have to be set aside. The motion of no confidence was not annexed to Form II for the presiding officer to read out the motion for which the meeting was convened in terms of Section 46(4) of the Act, 1965. The Form II notice dated 29.04.2025 is also in contravention of Section 46(1) and 46(2) of the Act, 1965, as such, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside. 28. The implead petition in I.A. No.2 of 2025 filed in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 does not warrant any merit in view of this Court setting aside the impugned proceedings. 29. In view of this Court setting aside the impugned proceedings in W.P. No.12579 of 2025, the writ petition in W.P. No.17813 of 2025 deserves to be dismissed. 30. In the result, W.P. No.12579 of 2025 is allowed and the W.P. No.17813 of 2025 is dismissed. No costs. 31. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV