Judgment reserved on 16.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on 17.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on 22.04.2026 APHC010641982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 33200 OF 2025 Between: 1. VAKKALAGADDA RAMYA SWATHI, W/O. SURESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6/19, NAIDU STREET, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. NALI CHINNA KONDAIAH,, S/O. PITCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-1057-A, NAGULAVARAM ROAD, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. BUSSETTY NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6- 298, VADDE BAZAR, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. BUSSETTY NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O. CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.6-298, VADDE BAZAR, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4. SHAIK CHINNA SHAKSHAVALI,, S/O. MAHABOOB SAHEB AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-1027-1, NAGULAVARAM ROAD, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. MARAM REDDY PUSHPALATHA,, W/O. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.8/129/A, EAST STREET, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. DODDA BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O. NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-99, GORLAGADDA STREET, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2 7. SHAIK ISMAIL,, S/O. HABIBULLAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-203-D-99E, APSEB COLONY, OPP GEORGE PHARMACY COLLEGE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 8. KASSETTY NAGESH KUMAR, S/O. LAKSHMI KONDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7/325-22, PERAM STREET, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 9. DUDEKULA KARIMULLA,, S/O. NAGURVALI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-203-Z-77-10A, NEAR POWER OFFICE, THARLUPADU ROAD, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 10. YALAKAPATI HARSHITHA,, D/O. POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-224, A.B.M. COMPOUND, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 11. KOTTE RAMA LAKSHAMMA,, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7/664-A, SIVAJI NAGAR, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 12. TARIYAKULA RANGALAKSHAMMA,, W/O. RAVI KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-216-D-3, WARD NO.1, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 13. SHAIK PHATHIMA,, W/O. SHAKSHAVALI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-203-C-7B, POOLASUBBAIAH COLONY, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 14. DUGGEMPUDI JYOTHI,, W/O. YAILAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O. OBULAKKAPALLE, PEDDARAVEEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 15. BURRI YALLAMMA,, W/O. KATAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/C. D.NO.1-250-1-A2 CHENNARAYUNIPALLE, KETHAGUDIPI VILLAGE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 16. SHAIK KUSHEED,, W/O. HABIBULLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 10-761 VIJAYA TALKIES ROAD, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 17. SRIRAM SUNKAIAH,, S/O. NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-203-A-30D SC BC COLONY, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3 18. SHAIK NASAR VALI,, S/O. MAHAMMAD BASHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-705L, ONTEDDU BANDI COLONY, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 19. SHAIK KARIMUN,, W/O. SHAIK MOHEED, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-936-A, NAGULAVARAM ROAD, NEAR JAGADEESWARI HALL, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 20. KOLA BHAVANI,, D/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-203-D-33-A-1, BAPUJI COLONY, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 21. PINNIKA ADILAKSHMI,, W/O. MALLIKHARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.515-Y-5-D, ESTATE, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 22. YAMMANI NAGA ARUNA, , W/O. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.10-739-A, VIJAYA TALKIES ROAD, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 23. AMBADIPUDI BALA CHENNAMMA,, W/O. VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.1-337-Q-2, MATAM COLONY, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE 3. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, ONGOLE AND PRESIDING OFFICER FOR CONDUCIING THE MEETING OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ON NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4. THE MARKAPUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. CHERLAMCHERLA BALA MURALI KRISHNA, S/O. CH. 4 CHENCHAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, CHAIRPERSON, MARKAPUR MUNICIPALITY, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...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 to pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.2878186/G/202 5, dt 24.11.2025 of the 1st Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjustified and unsustainable and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to forthwith issue the Notification for removal of the Chairperson from the office of the 4th Respondent Municipality and to fill up the resultant vacancy in the same manner as a casual vacancy and pass IA 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 suspend the operation of Memo No.2878186/G/2025, dt.24.11.2025 of the 1st Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 3. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI 4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 5 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Venkata Naga Vishnu Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1, Sri B. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 & 3, Sri G. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4 and Ms. Gandham Papa Kusuma, learned Counsel representing Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned Counsel for Respondent No.5. 2. The Prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.2878186/G/2025, dt 24.11.2025 of the 1st Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, unjustified and unsustainable and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to forthwith issue the Notification for removal of the Chairperson from the office of the 4th Respondent Municipality and to fill up the resultant vacancy in the same manner as a casual vacancy and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” FACTS AS PROJECTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONERS: 3. The facts as projected by the Writ Petitioners (23 in number) are that about 23 Ward Members of Markapur Municipality (Respondent No.4) have submitted Form-I (Ex.P.2) by expressing „No-confidence‟ against the Chairperson, Markapur Municipal Council (the Council), on 12.05.2025 (Ex.P.2); that, on verifying the signatures of the Signatories in Form-I and having been satisfied about the genuineness, Form-II was issued by Respondent No.2 to all the Members of the Council on 22.05.2025 proposing to convene a Council Meeting at 11:00 a.m. on 11.06.2025 in the Office of the Markapur Municipality (Respondent No.4); that, in this process, the Collector 6 and District Magistrate, Prakasam District (Respondent No.2), had nominated the District Revenue Officer, Ongole (Respondent No.3), as the Presiding Officer to conduct the Meeting of the Municipal Council in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act, 1965) and the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Motion of No-confidence in Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson) Rules, 2008; and that, on the scheduled date, i.e., on 11.06.2025, as there was no sufficient Quorum at 11:00 a.m., the Meeting was adjourned to 3:30 p.m. and was held on the same day as there was sufficient quorum (with 24 members), namely two-thirds of all the members entitled to vote. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners herein that there are 35 wards in Markapur Municipality and therefore the Council consists of 35 Ward Members and one Ex-officio Member (local MLA), thereby totaling to 36 Members who are eligible to vote; that it is stated that one of the Ward Members died and therefore the total number of Members eligible to vote are 35 members (i.e., 34 Ward Members and one Ex-officio Member); that 24 Members have attended the Meeting at 3:30 p.m., including the MLA of Markapur Constituency as Ex-officio Member; that the required quorum in terms of the Statute is 23; that, when the voting was conducted by Respondent No.3, instructing the Councillors to raise their hands in support of the No-confidence Motion, 19 Members have raised their hands, including the Ex-officio Member in favour of the Motion; and that, out of the total 24 Members who attended the Meeting on 11.06.2025, 5 Members, though physically present in the Meeting, did not raise their hands either in favour of or against the No-confidence Motion. Therefore, the Presiding Officer (Respondent No.3) had declared that 5 members have abstained from voting. 5. The facts would further indicate that the Presiding Officer/Respondent No.3, after counting the number of persons who raised their hands in favour of the motion, had issued Proceedings to the effect that “Motion of No- confidence against Sri Chirlamcharla Balamurali Krishna Rao, Chairperson, Municipal Council, Markapur Municipality, is passed”; that the Presiding 7 Officer, vide letter dated 11.06.2025 (Ex.P.3), addressed a letter to the District Collector (Respondent No.2) along with the material papers and conveyed to the effect that: “Hence, the No-confidence Motion on the Chairperson is approved as per voting”; and that Respondent No.2, in turn, addressed a letter on the same day, i.e., on 11.06.2025 (Ex.P.4), to the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Respondent No.1), to the same effect. 6. It is further submitted that, since Respondent No.1, who is endowed with Statutory Functions under Section 46(6) of the Act, 1965, had not issued any Proceedings, some of the Members who participated in the No-confidence Motion approached this Court seeking a direction to Respondent No.1 by filing W.P. No.30459 of 2025; that this Court, vide Order dated 12.11.2025, directed Respondent No.1 to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 46(6) of the Act, 1965, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order; and that, even before the receipt of copy of the Order, the Respondent No.1 issued the Impugned Memo No.2878186/G/2025 dated 24.11.2025 (Ex.P.1), holding that the No-confidence Motion moved against the Chairperson of the Markapur Municipal Council on 11.06.2025 does not follow the mandatory criteria under Section 46(6) of the Act, 1965 and therefore the Motion is deemed invalid. 7. This Proceeding of Respondent No.1 dated 24.11.2025 (Ex.P.1), bearing Memo No.2878186/G/2025, is challenged by 23 Ward Members, which include Members who were present during the time of voting and have raised their hands in favour of the No-confidence Motion, and also those who had abstained from voting. CONTENTIONS OF THE WRIT PETITIONERS: 8. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Venkata Naga Vishnu Teja, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, has 8 placed reliance on the Provisions of the Statute and the Rules and would submit that Respondent No.1 has clearly misunderstood as to what constitutes “two-thirds majority of the total number of the members including the ex-officio members as on the date of the meeting”. He had justified the action of Respondent No.3 in declaring that the No-confidence Motion has been passed against the Chairperson of the Markapur Municipal Council. He would submit that the Presiding Officer is required to treat the Members present in the Meeting for the purpose of constituting two-thirds of the Members present in the Meeting, and not two-thirds of the total number of Members of the Council entitled to vote as on the date of the Meeting. He would also submit that even the Members, who have not raised their hands shall also be included as part of the two-thirds Members, in view of the fact that they were the Signatories in Form-I and also in view of the fact that the present Writ Petition has been filed by such Members in addition to the Members who have raised their hands. He would also submit that when once the Presiding Officer had issued Proceedings to the effect that the Motion of No-confidence has been passed against the Chairperson, the role of the Government under Section 46 (6) of the Act, 1965 is only „ministerial‟ in nature because the said Sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 states that if the Motion is carried, “the Government shall, by notification, remove the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson”, as the case may be, from the Office, and the resultant vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as a casual vacancy. 9. By placing reliance on the word “shall,” in sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the act of the Government is reduced to a „ministerial function‟ and that the Principal Secretary does not have the Jurisdiction to re-examine the legality or otherwise of the Proceedings issued by the Presiding Officer (the District Revenue Officer), which stood affirmed by the District Collector. 10. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has placed reliance on two judgments. He has relied on the Order passed by the 9 learned Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana in Para Nos.25 & 41 in Jakka Venkat Reddy vs. The State of Telangana and Others : in I.A. No.1 of 2024 in W.P. No.21205 of 2024 dated 08.08.2024, wherein the learned Single Judge had held that only two-thirds of the such Members present in a validly constituted Meeting is required to pass the motion. “25. Before adverting to respective contentions, the provisions and Rules relevant for consideration of the issue are – Section 37 of the Act, reading as : “37. A motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson and/or the Vice-Chairperson may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion, in such form as specified under the Rules, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Municipality having right to vote, together with a copy of the proposed motion, to the District Collector concerned, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules: 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 thirds majority 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. Rule 3 : 3. A motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson may be made by giving a written notice of intention to mover the motion in Form-I duly signed by not less than one- half of the total number of members of the Municipal Council having right to vote together with a copy of the proposed motion to the District Collector concerned.” 10 Rule 10 : 10. (1). A meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under these rules shall not be adjourned for any reason. (2). The quorum for such meeting shall be two thirds of the total number of members. (3). If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting, there is no quorum, the Presiding Officer shall adjourn the meeting to some other time on the same day and notify the same in the notice board of the Council. If there is no quorum at the adjourned time also, the meeting shall stand dissolved and notice given under Rule 3 shall lapse. (4). As soon as a meeting convened under the said rule commences the Presiding Officer shall read to the members present in the meeting, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. Rule 11 : 11. When the Motion of No Confidence is put to vote, the Presiding Officer shall first ask the members to raise hands who vote for the motion and record their names with party affiliation in the minutes book. Similarly, the Presiding Officer shall ask the remaining members to raise their hands who vote against the motion and record their names with party affiliation in the minutes book. The names of members who abstain from voting with their party affiliation shall also be recorded in the minutes book. The result of the voting shall be recorded in the minutes book. 41. So far as, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that for a meeting to be convened and a resolution to be passed therein the required quorum was two thirds of the total number of members is concerned, it is of consequence to note that this Court in Chella Naga Bhushanam and another Vs. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat building Hyderabad while examining the 11 said issue held that while 2/3rd majority of the total members is required to constitute sufficient quorum, it is only two thirds of such members present in such validly constituted meeting is required to pass the motion. The aforesaid finding of this Court had attained finality as no appeal was preferred against the order in Chella Naga Bhushanam ( supra). Further, the same would be amply clear having regard to the language used in the second proviso of Section 37 of the Act read with the Rules, wherein the word „total‟ was prefixed at places whenever the same was required, as compared to the omission of the word „total‟ in other places.” 11. He has also relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Para Nos.28 & 29 in State of U.P. and Others vs. Babu Ram Upadhya (1960 SCC OnLine SC 5 : (1961) 2 SCR 679), to the effect that when the word “shall” is used in a statute, the Authority is denuded of the discretionary power and the function of the Authority is merely reduced to a ministerial functioning. 28. The question is whether Rule I of para 486 is directory. The relevant rule says that the police officer shall be tried in the first place under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. The word "shall" in its ordinary import is "obligatory”; but there are many decisions wherein the courts under different situations construed the word to mean "may". This Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque dealt with this problem at p. 1125 thus "It is well established that an enactment in form mandatory might in substance be directory and that the use of the word 'shall does not conclude the matter." It is then observed: "They (the rules) are well-known, and there is no need to repeat them. But they are all of them only aids for ascertaining the true intention of the legislature which is the determining factor, and that must ultimately depend on the context." The following quotation from Crowford on the Construction of Statutes, at p. 516, is also helpful in this connection: 12 "The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other...” This passage was approved by this Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava. In Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edn, the following passage appears at p. 242: "No universal rule can be laid down as to whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nulliflication for disobedience. It is the duty of courts of justice to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute to be construed." A valuable guide for ascertaining the intention of the Legislature is found in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., at p. 381 and it is: "On the other hand, where the prescriptions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and where the invalidation of acts done in neglect of them would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty without promoting the essential aims of the legislature, such prescriptions seem to be generally understood as mere instructions for the guidance and government of those on whom the duty is imposed, or, in other words, as directory only. The neglect of them may be penal, indeed, but it does not affect the validity of the act done in disregard of them." This passage was accepted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandin and by this Court in State of LLP. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava. 29. The relevant rules of interpretation may be briefly stated thus: When a statute uses the word "shall", prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. For ascertaining the real 13 intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions, the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.” CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS: 12. Respondent No.1 filed Counter-Affidavit on 16.12.2025. Respondent No.4 filed Counter-Affidavit on 02.02.2026. Despite several opportunities granted for filing Counter-Affidavit, Respondent No.5 (namely the Chairperson of the Council) had not filed the Counter-Affidavit by February, and when the matter was listed for hearing on 24.02.2026, the request of the learned Counsel representing Unofficial Respondent No.5 seeking further time was turned down by this Court. Although the Counter-Affidavit of Respondent No.4 is not of much significance, the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Respondent No.1) is the one, which is of significance and would be discussed henceforth. 13. Along with the Counter-Affidavit of Respondent No.1, certain Official Proceedings originating from Respondent No.3 (Ex.P.3) and Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 (Ex.P.4) have also been placed on record. The said Counter-Affidavit of Respondent No.1 states that Respondent No.3 has completely misread the Statutory Provisions, particularly Section 46 of the Act, 1965. It is stated that Respondent No.3 fell into error in understanding as to what constitutes „Quorum‟ and how many votes are required for passing the Motion successfully. It is stated in the Counter-Affidavit that reliance placed by Respondent No.3 on the Judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of 14 Telangana in W.P.No.2878 of 2024 and in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21205 of 2024 are also misplaced. 14. Sri A. Sreekanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 has placed reliance on the 2nd Proviso of Section 46 (1). He has also placed reliance on Section 46 (6) and Explanation-I. The learned Government Pleader would sustain the Order passed by Respondent No.1 and would submit that Respondent No.3 has wrongly declared that the motion against No-confidence had been passed by the Respondent No.3 only by misreading of the Provisions of Section 46 of the Act 1965. He would also submit that the word “shall” occurring in Section 46(6) does not reduce the function of Principal Secretary to a Ministerial one but the Government is statutorily obligated to see whether the Presiding Officer had approved the Motion that is passed is in accordance with the Statute or not. He would submit that the intent of the legislature as regards the role of the Government is not merely „mechanical‟, but at the highest level, the Government is expected to consider the legality or otherwise of the acts of the executive i.e., the Presiding Officer (Respondent No.3) and the District Collector (Respondent No.2). He would therefore submit that Respondent No.1 has merely corrected the illegality that was committed by Respondent No.3, as confirmed by Respondent No.2. He would also submit that it is clear from the facts that Respondent No.3 has misunderstood as to what constitutes two-thirds majority. STATUTORY PROVISIONS: 15. The relevant Provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and the relevant Rules are usefully extracted hereunder: “Section 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 of intention to move the motion, in such form as may be 15 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-thirds 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 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- 16 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 subsection (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 recognised 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. (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. 17 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. (emphasis supplied) Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence in Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson) Rules, 2008 : Rule 3. A motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion in form-I duly signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the municipal council having right to vote, together with a copy of the proposed motion to the District Collector concerned. Rule 5. (1) After proper verification of the signatures of the members in form-I, the District Collector shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the municipal council on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which notice was delivered to him. He shall give to the members who are having right to vote notice of not less than fifteen clear days as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 46 of the Act in form-II. (2) The meeting shall not be convened on a public holiday. Rule 6. The notice referred to in form-II shall be served on the members as provided in Section 353 of the Act. Rule 8. After issue of a notice under Rule 5 by the District Collector, every recognized political party may appoint a person on behalf of that political party as whip and intimation of such appointment shall be issued by the State President or a person authorized by him under his seal and such intimation shall be sent to the Presiding Officer to reach him on or before 11.00 a.m. on the day preceding the day appointed for consideration of the No confidence Motion against Chairperson or Vice- Chairperson. 18 Rule 10. (1) A meeting convened for the purpose of considering a motion under these rules shall not be adjourned for any reason. (2) The quorum for such meeting shall be two thirds of the total number of members. (3) If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting, there is no quorum, the presiding officer shall adjourn the meeting to some other time on the same day and notify the same in the notice board of the Council. If there is no quorum at the adjourned time also, the meeting shall stand dissolved and notice given under rule 3 shall lapse (4) As soon as a meeting convened under the said rule commences the presiding officer shall read to the members present in the meeting, the motion for the consideration of which the meeting has been convened and shall put it to vote without any debate. Rule 11. When the Motion of No confidence is put to vote, the Presiding Officer shall first ask the members to raise their hands who vote for the motion and record their names with party affiliation in the minutes book. Similarly, the Presiding Officer shall ask the remaining members to raise their hands who vote against the motion and record their names with party affiliation in the minutes book. The names of members who abstain from voting with their party affiliation shall also be recorded in the minutes book. The result of the voting shall be recorded in the minutes book.” (emphasis supplied) ANALYSIS: 16.A. The facts narrated herein above are not much in dispute. It is a fact that the total number of Wards in Markapur Municipality are 35 in number. Therefore, there are 35 ward members in the Council. The local M.L.A is also the ex-officio member of the Council, thereby making the total strength of the Council as 36 „who are entitled to vote‟. It is also an admitted fact that one of the ward member is no more, and therefore, the total number of members in the Council who are entitled to vote as on 11.06.2025 are 35 in number. It is 19 an admitted fact that 24 Councilors out of 35 have attended the meeting at 3.30 P.M on 11.06.2025 that was convened for considering the Motion of No Confidence against the Unofficial Respondent No.5. It is also an admitted fact that out of 24 members who attended the meeting and were present, only 19 members have raised their hands in favour of the No Confidence Motion and five members have abstained from raising their hand either in favour of or against the Motion of No Confidence. The Respondent No.3 had treated those 5 members as having abstained from voting (mentioned at Serial No.7 in the Table below). Admittedly, the District Revenue Officer (Presiding Officer - Respondent No.3) had declared that the Motion of No Confidence has been passed successfully vide ROC No.939/2025/E1 dated 11.06.2025 (Ex.P.3). Para No.5 of the said Proceedings of Respondent No.3 dated 11.06.2025 (Ex.P.3) containing the Table is usefully extracted hereunder: “5. On the same day at 3.30 PM, the meeting is commenced, and the details of the participation, result and other information are submitted below. RESULT OF NO CONFIDENCE MOTION AGAINST SRI CHIRLAMCHARLA BALAMURALI KRISHNA RAO, CHAIRPERSON, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MARKAPUR MUNICIPALITY 1. Total strength of municipal council including Ex- Officio members 36 Members – 35 Ex-Officio member - 1 2. Total members of the Municipal Council attended the meeting 24 3. Total members of the Municipal Council not attended the meeting 12 (including 1 died) 4. Quorum required 23 5. Total members of municipal council voted in the favour of the no confidence motion against Sri Chirlamcharla Balamurall Krishna Rao, Chairperson, Municipal Council, Markapur Municipality 19 6. Total members of municipal council voted against the no confidence motion In Sri Chirlamcharla Balamurali Krishna Rao, Chairperson, Municipal Council, Markapur Municipality 0 7. Total members of the Municipal Council abstain from voting 5 20 8. Result The Motion of no confidence against Sri Chirlamcharla Balamurali Krishna Rao, Chairperson, Municipal Council, Markapur Municipality is passed. 16.B. This indicates that the Respondent No.3 has taken two-thirds of the total members present in the meeting at 3.30 P.M on 11.06.2025 for the purpose of the Motion. 16.C. The impugned Proceeding issued by the Respondent No.1 dated 24.11.2025 (Ex.P.1) is usefully extracted hereunder: “9. The above rule position in the AP Municipalities Act 1965 vide Section No.46 (6) clearly reflects the twin requirement of 2/3rds majority for attaining the quorum and for passing the motion also. For removal of any doubts on the above, the explanation I of section 46 clearly clarified that the total number of members means all the members who are elected to vote in the election to the office concerned, including ex officio members. 10. The reliance placed by the Presiding Officer on certain judgments under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, as referred by the District Collector in the report have been examined and it is clarified that the provisions of the AP Municipalities Act 1965 in Section 46 and in its Explanation-I thereon, has to be followed in the present case. Reliance on the Telangana Municipalities Act/Rules and a High Court order based on that cannot be done in this case. 11. Accordingly, upon careful examination of the facts and the material on record, Government hereby concludes that the no-confidence motion moved against the Chairperson of the Markapur Municipal Council on 11.06.2025 does not fulfill the mandatory criteria under Section 46(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. The motion is therefore deemed invalid, and no further proceedings shall be undertaken for the removal of the Chairperson pursuant to the said motion.” 21 17. The above stated admitted facts are now required to be correlated with the provisions of the Statue to see whether the action of Respondent No.3 is in accordance with the Statue and the Rules or not. The relevant Statutory Provisions and the Rules are extracted supra. Section 46 of the Act, 1965 deals with the Motion of no Confidence in Chairperson/Vice Chairperson. For the present purpose, all the sub-sections are not required to be discussed except Sub-sections 3, 4 & 6 and the Explanation-I to Sub-section 6 of Section 46 of the Act. 18. Similarly, Sub-Rule (2) of Rule No.10 and Rule No.11 of Rules, 2008 are also relevant. In terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965, admittedly, two-thirds of the total number of members would be 23 out of 35. Whereas, on 11.06.2025, admittedly, 24 members have attended the meeting. Therefore, there is no doubt that the quorum for having a valid meeting on 11.06.2025 was there. 19. By adhering to Sub-Section (4) of Section 46 of Act 1965 read with Rule 11 of Rules, 2008, the Presiding Officer (Respondent No.3) had requested the members who are in favour of the Motion to express by show of hands. Admittedly, only 19 members out of 24 have raised their hands in favour of the Motion of No Confidence against Unofficial Respondent No.5. Five of the members who were present did not raise their hands either in favour of or against the Motion. Therefore, the Presiding Officer (Respondent No.3) had shown the 5 members as having abstained from voting. In order to understand whether the Presiding Officer is right in taking two-thirds of the members present in the Motion on 11.06.2025 as being sufficient or whether it is two- third of the total members who are entitled to vote as on the date of the meeting that is required for passing a No Confidence Motion successfully, the key lies in understanding the purport of Explanation-I of Sub-section (6) of Section 46 of Act, 1965 and it assumes significance. 20. At the cost of repetition, this Court deems it necessary to extract Explanation-I of Sub-section (6) of Section 46 of Act, 1965 as under: 22 “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.” 21. The literal meaning of Explanation-I would make it amply clear, without any kind of ambiguity, that two-third of the total number of members of Council who are entitled to vote are required to vote in favour of the Motion of No Confidence against Unofficial Respondent No.5. Therefore, out of 35 members who are entitled to vote as on the date of the meeting, atleast 23 members, that constitutes two-thirds, are required to vote in favour of the Motion by show of hands. Admittedly, in the present case, only 19 members out of 35 members have expressed by show of hands in favour of the Motion instead of 23, which is the deciding figure. 22. As stated earlier, the Explanation-I of Sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 holds the key as to what constitutes a two-third majority for the removal of the Chairman/Vice Chairman by a Motion of No Confidence under Section 46 of the Act, 1965. The said Explanation-I is absolutely categorical and it would not leave any room for doubt whatsoever that the total number of members of the Council entitled to vote as on the date of the meeting means all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned including the ex-officio members as on the date of the meeting. 23. At this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel representing the Writ Petitioner on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in Jakka Venkata Reddy v. State of Telangana in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21205 of 2024 is of no avail, inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has not considered any provision of law which is in pari materia with Explanation-I of Sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the A.P Municipalities Act, 1965. This apart, even the issue that is framed and decided by the Ld. Single Judge of Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana is no way related to the issue on 23 hand. Hence, the issue framed therein by the Ld. Single of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana is usefully extracted hereunder: “Whether prima facie the 2nd respondent by accepting Form-1 dated 18.07.2024 could have issued Form-II (for the 2nd time) scheduling the meeting on 09.08.2024 at 11.00 a.m.” 24. In this view of the matter, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the Judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in Jakka Venkata Reddy v. State of Telangana in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.21205 of 2024 is of no avail. 25. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that Respondent No.3 has committed a grave error in declaring the Motion of No Confidence as being passed against Unofficial Respondent No.5 on 11.06.2025. This leads us to the next question whether the illegal action of Respondent No.3 cannot be corrected by the Government acting through the Principal Secretary under Sub-Section (6) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965. 26. Coming to the issue whether the use of the word „shall‟ in Sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the word „shall‟ cannot deprive the Government, which is the ultimate authority to notify the removal of the Chairman, in rectifying the gross illegality committed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3. A close reading of Sub- section (6) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 would disclose that the Government would be mandatorily obligated to issue „Notification‟ removing the Chairperson only if the 1st part of Sub-section (6) is scrupulously followed as per the statute. The first part of Sub-section (6) contemplates that the motion shall be “carried with the support of two-thirds majority of the total number of members including the ex-officio members as on the date of the meeting”. Even if the Presiding Officer (Respondent No.3) were to get any doubt as to what constitutes two-thirds majority, such doubt is clarified by Explanation-I to Sub-section (6) without any ambiguity (extracted supra). 24 27. This Court has already opined that the understanding of the statutory provisions by the Presiding Officer (Respondent No.3) is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Statute and the Rules inasmuch as the Presiding Officer (Respondent No.3) has not complied with the 1st part of Sub-section (6) as per law. When once the Presiding Officer has not complied with the 1st part of Sub-section (6) by reading it along with Explanation-I correctly, the Writ Petitioners cannot insist on the Government to mechanically issue the Notification confirming the Proceedings of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 and remove the Chairperson, which is per se illegal. 28. Government is not expected to act as a mere rubber stamp and notify even an illegal decision rendered by the Presiding Officer as confirmed by the District Collector. This apart, this Court is also of the opinion that the very intent of the Legislature requiring the Government to pass the Final Order under Sub-section (6) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 is with a view to enable the Government to consider the legality or otherwise of the whole process that is involved under Section 46 of the Act, 1965. 29. One of the contentions of the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners is that about 23 Ward Members have signed on Form-I and that the present Writ Petition is also filed by 23 Ward Members and therefore, these facts are sufficient to indicate that two-thirds of the total Members (35 in number) entitled to vote are deemed to have voted in favour of the Motion for No Confidence. Having considered this submission, this Court opines that this plea cannot be considered. There might have been consensus among 23 Ward Members before the Motion, when they signed Form-I and thereafter when the same set of Members have signed the Vakaltnama for filing the present Writ Petition. This Court opines that consensus before the Motion and consensus after the Motion, without there being any consensus during the actual Motion at 3.30 P.M on 11.06.2025 is a situation which the law cannot countenance. Any consideration of this situation in a different manner would be an absolute perversity. View of this Court is fortified by the Judgment of 25 the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ramchandra Keshav Adke (dead) by L.Rs v. Govind Joti Chavare and Others : (1975) 1 SCC 559, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para No.25 as under: “A Century ago, in Taylor v. Taylor, Jassel, M.R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time. It was applied by the Privy Council, in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor and later by this Court in several cases, to magistrate making a record under Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989. This rule squarely applies “where, indeed, the whole aim and object of the Legislature would be plainly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other”. The rule………………………………………………………………..” 30. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 is absolutely in accordance with law, and therefore, does not suffer any legal infirmity. Hence, no interference is called for. 31. In the above premise, the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No Order as to Costs. 32. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 17.04.2026 DSV/MNR/JKS 26 183 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.33200 OF 2025 Dt: 17.04.2026 Note: LR copy to be marked. B/o. DVS/MNR/JKS