APHC010297002020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos.19692 of 2020 and 7523 of 2026 WP.No.19692 of 2020 Between: 1. SRI THUBATI PURNACHANDRA RAO,, S/O HANUMANTHA RAO, AGE 65 ADDRESS R/O GANAPAVARAM VILLAGE, NADENDLA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. G. RAVITHEJA,, S/O SATYAM AGE 25 ADDRESS R/O GUDEVARIPALEM, H/O PASUMARRU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ADDRESS MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, ADDRESS PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ADDRESS SRI KRISHNA ENCLAVE, ANNAPURNA NAGAR, 4/7, INNER RING ROAD, GORANTLA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 4. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, ADDRESS TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ADDRESS GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ADDRESS GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR 7. THE CHILAKALURIPET MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER/SPL.OFFICER, ADDRESS CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT 8. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, PASUMARRU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADDRESS CHILAKALURIPETA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 9. THE PASUMARRU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, ADDRESS PASUMARRU VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 10. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADDRESS GANAPAVARAM, CHILAKALURIPETA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 11. THE GANAPAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS 2 PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, ADDRESS GANAPAVARAM VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT 12. THE TAHSILDAR, ADDRESS CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 13. THE SPECIAL OFFICER CUM JOINT COLLECTOR 1, ADDRESS GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 14. SMT VIDADHALA RAJANI, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, CHILAKALURIPETA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY, ADDRESS RESIDENT OF PURUSHOTHAMAPATNAM VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPETA MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.83, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G) Dept. dated 28-01-2020 and G.O.Ms.No.260, RPandRD(EandR) Dept., dated 28-01-2020 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of Section 3, 6 and 143 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 3 of The Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, AP Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/from the Jurisdiction of Municipalities/Nagara Panchayats) Rules, 2015, Andhra Pradesh Grama Panchayats (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007, Rules Relating to Holding of meetings of the Grama Sabha, dated 04-04-1997, Andhra Pradesh District (Formation) Act, 1974 and Articles 14, 40, 243(G) of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently the respondents be directed not to include Pasumarru and Ganapavaram Villages in Chilakaluripet Municipality otherwise than due process of law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 stay the operation of G.O.Ms.No.83, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G) Dept. dated 28-01-2020 and G.O.Ms.No.260, RP&RD(E&R) Dept., dated 28-01-2020 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 please to implead the proposed petitioners as respondents 15 & 16 in the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2021 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 please to vacate the interim order dt.22.10.2020 in WP. 19692/2020 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 Implead the petitioners/pro posed respondent No. 15 to 26 as respondent No. 15 to 26 in the above Writ Petition and pass 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to Implead, 1) Kalli Veerare dy, S/o Rangareddy, Age 54 years, R/o Door No. 3-132, M.K.V. alem, Manukondavaripalem Village, Chilakaluripet, Guntur istrct - 522616, 2) Manukonda Ramireddy, S/o Periredd y, Age 72 years, Rio Door No. 4-83, M.K.V. Palem, Manukon avaripalem Village, Guntur District - 522616, 3) Manukon a Satya Narayanareddy, S/o Pedda Kotireddy, Age 65 years, R/ Door No. 1-87, M.K.V. Palem, Manukondavaripalem Village, hilakaluripet, Guntur District-522616,as Proposed Petitioner No.3 to 5 in W.P. No.19692 of 2020 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to implead the proposed Respondent i.e., The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, Rep. by its State Election Commissioner, 1st Floor, New HODs Building, MG Road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh — 520010, as Respondent No.15 in W.P.No.19692 of 2020, and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities, including the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission, to restrain from issuing or giving effect to any election notification, election programme, ward formation/delimitation, electoral roll or any other consequential election-related process insofar as Pasumarru and Ganapavaram Villages, pending disposal of the present writ petition, and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to grant leave for filing this Counter Affidavit in view of the delay caused and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SAI SUNDEEP MANCHIKALAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI SC For MUNICIPALITIES 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 5. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats WRIT PETITION NO: 7523/2026 Between: 1. V VENKATESWAR RAO, /O ADINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, (COUNCILOR OF WARD NO.2, VICE CHAIRMAN - CHILAKALURIPET MUNICIPALITY), R/O D. NO. 4-100-1, GANAPAVARAM, KONDRUVARI MULA, NADANDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4 2. T. SUDHAKAR,, S/O SAMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION (COUNCILOR OF WARD NO.L), R/O D. NO. 2-66-5, POLERAMMA TEMPLE, GANAPAVARAM, NADANDIA MANDAL, 3. P. SAGAR BABU,, S/O RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE ELECTRICIAN, (COUNCILOR -SC WARD NO.3), R/O D. NO. 6-82-1, GANAPAVARAM, NADANDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. SK. ADAM VALLI,, S/O PEDAGALI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE (COUNCILOR, WARD NO.5), R/O D. NO. 9- 134/1, MASJID BAZAR, GANAPAVARAM, NADANDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 5. KATA VENKATESWARLU,, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O 9-39, GANAPAVARAM VILLAGE, NADANDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. K. SUNDARA RAO,, S/O NARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OC CULTIVATION (EX. SARPANCH), R/O D. NO. 4-144, GANAPAVARAM, KONDRUVARI MULA, NADANDIA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 7. B. RAMA RAO,, S/O VENKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION (EX. MPTC-GANAPAVARAM), R/O D. NO. 3-36/5, GANAPAVARAM, KONDRUVARI MULA, NADANDLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 8. K. RAMESH BABU,, S/O SAMBA SIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCPRIVATE EMPLOYEE (EX. CHAIRMAN, PACW- GANAPAVARAM), R/O D. NO. 3-100, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, GANAPAVARAM, KONDRUVARI MULA, NADANDLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 9. . CH. RAMA RAO, S/O PEDDA HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCBUSINESS, R/O D. NO. 4-186, NTR CENTER, GANAPAVARAM, KONDRUVARI MULA, NADANDLA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (MED- SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237. 4. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL 5 ADMINISTRATION, SRI KRISHNA ENCLAVE, ANNAPURNA NAGAR, 4/7, INNER RING ROAD, GORANTIA, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522034. CONTD. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522502.I 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT, PALNADU- 522601. 7. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PALNADU DISTRICT, PALNADU-522601. 8. THE CHILAKALURIPET MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522616. 9. 9. THE COMMISSIONER, CHILAKALURIPET MUNICIPALITY, CHILAKALURIPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522616. 10. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, ERESTHILE GANAPAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT- 522616. 11. THE ERSTWHILE GANAPAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GANAPAVARAM VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPET MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT-522616. 12. THE SPECIAL OFFICER CUM JOINT COLLECTOR, 1, PALNADU, PALNADU DISTRICT-522616. ...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 toPleased to issue an order or order, direction of directions. Writ or Writs particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in passing the impugned resolution dt.26.11.2024 passed by the Gramasabha of Ganapavaram Village, chaired by the Special Officer and consequential resolution No.448, dt. 18.07.2025 passed by the Chilakaluripet Municipal Council and all other consequential proceedings issued thereunder are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the Rules made under A.P. Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas into/from the Jurisdiction of the Municipalities/Nagara Panchayath) Rules, 2015 and provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 and set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned resolution Dt.26-11-2024 passed by the Special officer of Ganapavaram Village and consequential proceedings issued thereunder, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 6 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in IA. No 1 of 2026 dated 17.03.2026 in the Writ petition bearing WP.No. 7523 of 2026 and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to implead the Applicants herein as Respondent Nos.13 to 17 (or in such array as this Honble Court may deem fit) in W.P.No.7523 of 2026 on the file of this Honble Court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D.GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI SC For MUNICIPALITIES 3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos.19692 of 2020 and 7523 of 2026 COMMON ORDER: 1. The WP.No.19692 of 2020 is filed challenging the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.83 and 260, dated 28.01.2020 proposing for inclusion of three gram panchayats namely (1) Manukonduvaripalem, (2) Pasumarru (3) Ganapavaram into limits of Chilakaluripeta Municipality in Guntur District and de-notification of three gram panchayats in Guntur District for their merger into the limits of Chilakaluripeta Municipality. A consequential direction to the respondents to exclude Pasumarru and Ganapavaram Villages from Chilakaluripeta Municipality is sought. 2. The WP.No.7523 of 2026 is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in passing the impugned resolution dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Grama Sabha of Ganapavaram Village and the consequential resolution dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Chilakaluripeta Municipal Council as illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. The impugned proceedings dated 18.07.2025 would refer to the pendency of WP.No.19692 of 2020 and as such, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the writ petitions are taken up for deciding by passing a common order. 4. WP.No.19692 of 2020: The petitioners are challenging the GO(s) issued for de-notification of three villages and merger of three villages (1) Manukonduvaripalem, (2) Pasumarru, (3) Ganapavaram into the limits 8 of Chilakaluripeta Municipality in Guntur District. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent Gram Panchayats did not follow the procedure for merging of Gram Panchayats into Municipalities. It is submitted that the Government framed Rules relating to Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Declaration/ De-notification/ Constitution of Villages) by issuing GOMs No. 542, dated 03.12.2007. 5. It is submitted that the respondent Gram Panchayats did not conduct any Grama Sabhas; however, they acted upon the letter addressed by the then MLA, Chilakaluripeta and got the resolution passed by the Special Officer of Pasumarru Grampanchayat on 19.09.2019 and similar resolution was passed by the Special Officer, Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued GOMs.No.260, PR & RD (E&R) Department, dated 28.01.2020 and GOMs.No.83, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G) Dept., dated 28.01.2020. 6. It is submitted that the District Collector is required to issue a show cause notice to the Grampanchayat inviting its views and after obtaining the view of the Grampanchayat and remarks of the District Panchayat Officer further action could have been initiated. It is also submitted that the respondent No.6 has filed a counter by denying the allegation regarding non-conduction of Grama Sabha and that the alleged relevant resolutions were filed as annexures to the counter. It is submitted that 9 the petitioner has filed additional materials by filing a memo dated 17.08.2026, and the colour photocopy of the impugned so-called resolutions would categorically indicate interpolation about the date of the Grama Sabha for Pasumarru village. It is submitted that the interpolation and overwriting on the alleged date of conducting the Grama Sabha would lead to further suspicion about the genuineness of those documents. 7. It is also submitted that the resolutions dated 12.01.2020 filed along with the counter of respondent No.6 are in the vernacular (Telugu) language. However, the true translation gives the resolutions a different meaning. The Telugu version of the resolutions would only indicate that a Grama Sabha is conducted. In contrast, the translation would indicate that a resolution was passed to include Pasumarru Grampanchayat into Chilakaluripeta Municipality. Similar resolutions relating to Manukondurivaripalem have been filed, and the true translation is at variance with the vernacular version. 8. It is also submitted that the Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat has issued a Dandora on 11.01.2020 by notifying the proposed Grama Sabha to be conducted on 12.01.2020. It is submitted that a 48-hour notice is required before any such Grama Sabha meeting is proposed to secure the opinion of the villagers. It is submitted that the petitioners submitted a representation dated 17.01.2020, duly bringing to the notice of the respondent-Municipality seeking the indulgence of the respondent- 10 Municipality and the District Collector and not to merge Pasumarru village into the Municipality. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WP.No.1198 of 2020. The learned single Judge of this Court was deciding a similar issue and has referred to the relevant Rules relating to holding of meetings of Grama Sabha and at para No.18 held as follows ; Further, the Government prescribed Rules for denoting the method and manner in which Grama Sabha is to be conducted (vide G.O.Ms.No.367, PR&RD (Pts.1) dated 28.08.1998. These rules are called “Rules relating to the holding of meetings of Grama Sabha”. Rule 4 says that no meeting shall be held unless notice of the place, date and time of the meeting has been given atleast two clear days before the date of meeting. This rule further says that the notice shall be given (i) by beat of drum in the village (ii) by affixing the notice at three conspicuous places in the village (iii) by affixing the notice on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat office. Rule 6 says that all questions which came up before the meeting shall be decided by ascertaining the consensus of the opinion of the members of Grama Sabha through the speeches delivered by them and at the end of the meeting, the Presiding Member shall read the proceedings of the Grama Sabha and get the approval of the members and the members shall raise their hands in token of their approval. Rule 9 lays down that an attendance register shall be maintained in which the Presiding member shall obtain the signature or thumb impression of all the members present at the meeting of the Grama Sabha. (a) The above are the rules regarding the Grama Sabha. It is very pertinent to note that in the impugned G.O. though the Government claimed to have relaxed Rule 6 of the A.P. Rules, 2007, but it did not claim the relaxation of Rule 9. Therefore, the respondents are obligated to follow Rule 9 scrupulously. Rule 9 can be said to be followed only when the Grama Sabha is conducted in accordance with the Rules relating to the holding of meetings of the Grama Sabha. It should be noted that except filing a copy of the resolution of Grama Sabha signed by the Special Officer and Panchayat Secretary, the respondents have not filed any other cogent material like the copies of notices issued to the villagers for attending Grama Sabha, the attendance register showing the particulars of the members who attended the Grama Sabha on 24.12.2019 etc. In the wake of denial by the petitioners of holding Grama Sabha on 24.12.2019, the probity of the copy of resolution can be accepted only when other relevant material is placed in its support. However, for the reasons best known, the respondents did not file any material showing the attendance of the villagers in the Grama Sabha allegedly held on 24.12.2019. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the 11 respondents have committed gross infraction of Rule 9 of the A.P. Rules, 2007 and therefore, the impugned G.O. is liable to be set aside as it fell foul of the A.P. Rules, 2007. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have deliberately not followed any Rules and guidelines which are prevailing and hold fort for conducting of Grama Sabha(s) and as such prays for setting aside the impugned Government Orders. It is also submitted that this Court had suspended the operation of the impugned Government Orders vide Order dated 22.10.2020. 11. Smt.Chaya Devi, learned senior counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents, appears virtually and submits that the petitioners have no locus to file the present writ petition and that the petitioners succeeded in obtaining an order suspending the impugned Government Orders by suppressing material facts. It is submitted that the petitioners were aware of the issuance of the election notification on 09.03.2020, and the impleaded respondents 17, 21, 23, and 26 have filed their nominations for Ward Nos. 2, 1, 3, and 5 of Chilakaluripeta Municipality of the erstwhile Ganapavaram Grampanchayat. It is submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the fact of the issuance of the election notification, which was stalled on 15.03.2020 due to the COVID Pandemic. It is submitted that this Court was not apprised of the issuance of the election notification when the order dated 22.10.2020 was passed. 12. It is also submitted that once election notification was issued the petitioners could not have suppress the said issue and projected similar 12 orders passed in other writ petitions is nothing but suppression of material facts and misleading this Hon’ble Court in passing the order dated 22.10.2020. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 17 to 28 filed counters and vacate petitions, and this Court was apprised of the suppression resorted to by the petitioners; as such, the order dated 22.10.2020 was modified on 09.03.2021. 13. It is also submitted that 80% of the villagers had participated in the Municipality Elections and that there was no boycott of elections. It is also submitted that the four contestants were elected to the Council and they completed their term as on 31.03.2026. It is also submitted that Rule 9 would categorically empower the Special Officer to conduct the Grama Sabha and pass resolutions. It is also submitted that the State initiated the de-merger process in November, 2024. It is submitted that the merger of the Gram Panchayats into Municipalities and as such the Government Orders have been acted upon. It is submitted that the three villages that have been merged into the Municipality are presently developed, and none of the villagers is interested in the de-merger of these villages back into the fold of the Gram Panchayats. The learned senior counsel prays for dismissing the writ petition. 14. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Panchayat Raj submits that the report of the Collector dated 09.05.2025 filed along with WP.No.7523 of 2026 has considered the interim orders dated 22.10.2020 and existence of Ganapavaram and Pasumarru Gram 13 Panchayats is recognised and that the Special Officers are administering the Gram Panchayats. Due to the limbo, grants from State Governments or the Union Government have not been released to these Gram Panchayats to provide minimum civic amenities. Accordingly, the Special Officers conducted a Grama Sabha on 26.11.2024 in Ganapavaram Village, and a unanimous resolution for the restoration of the status of Ganapavaram Village as a Gram Panchayat was passed. Similarly, a Gram Sabha was conducted on 06.12.2024 in Pasumarru Village, passing a resolution for the restoration of Gram Panchayat status, and a similar resolution was passed on 10.02.2025 by the Grama Sabha of Manukonduvaripalem Village. The Municipal Council also passed a resolution on 18.07.2025 expressing its consent to the demerger of the three Gram Panchayats from Chilakaluripeta Municipality. 15. It is submitted that a status quo order is passed in WP.No.7523 of 2026 and as such the respondents are unable to go ahead with the elections. It is also submitted that the three villages are re-notified as Gram Panchayats in the interest of the public and development of the Gram Panchayats. 16. The learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.4 submits that in pursuance of the report dated 09.05.2025 of the District Collector, the respondent No.4 has initiated the appropriate process for re-notifying the three villages as Gram Panchayats, so that necessary grants under 14 the 15th Finance Funds, Funds under MGNREGS and other grants can be allotted for smooth and effective running of the administration of those Gram Panchayats. 17. WP.No.7523 of 2026: The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Special Officer, Gram Panchayat, Ganapavaram could not have passed the resolution dated 26.11.2024 about Ganapavaram Village. It is submitted that by virtue of the modification of the interim order dated 22.10.2020 on 09.03.2021, the Gram Panchayat by itself did not exist. A Special Officer for a non-existing Gram Panchayat could not have passed the impugned resolution. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Article 243 (b) of the Constitution of India defines a Gram Panchayat and 243(d) defines a Panchayat. It is also submitted that Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 deals with the constitution of Gram Panchayats for villages and their incorporation. It is submitted that after the merger of the Gram Panchayats into Chilakaluri Municipality, the respondent Panchayats could not have passed a resolution through a Special Officer as the Gram Panchayat did not exist on paper and in accordance with the modified order dated 09.03.2021 passed in WP.No.19692 of 2020. It is submitted that the resolution of Gram Panchayat(s) has no relevance. It is submitted that the impugned resolutions in WP.No.7523 of 2026 deserve to be set aside. 15 19. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material on record. 20. The interim order dated 22.10.2020 had categorically suspended the operation of the impugned Government Orders. The order dated 09.03.2021 has considered the election notification which was issued, and also because the election process has gone far ahead, this Court evolved a via media approach by holding that “the election can go ahead; but it is made clear that declaration of results in Pasumarru/ Ganapavaram should clearly specify in the very same declaration that the result will be subject to the result of writ petition. No.19692 of 2020. This should be incorporated in the declaration of results etc., that are issued to the successful candidates and the arguments will be continued on 16th March, 2020 at 02.15 PM if necessary”. 21. The order dated 09.03.2021 has not unsettled the suspension of GOMs.No.260 and GOMs.No.83, dated 28.01.2020. Accordingly, in view of the suspension of the Government Orders, the Gram Panchayats continued to exist. It is also a matter of record that the Gram Panchayat, Ganapavaram, collected taxes in the year 2023 and 2024. 22. The copies of resolutions allegedly passed by the Grama Sabhas of Pasumarru Village and Manukonduvaripalem Village evidently have interpolations when compared with the colour photocopies filed by the petitioner in WP.No.19692 of 2020. The Rule 4 is violated insofar as the 16 Dandora for Ganapavaram village is concerned, the Dandora was issued on 11.01.2020 and meeting was called for on 12.01.2020, the same is not in accordance with Rules and as such cannot be considered as a valid Dandora which is mandatory under Rule 4 of Rules relating to holdings of Meetings of Grama Sabha issued vide G.O.Ms.No.367, PR & RD, dated 28.08.1998. 23. There is no explanation as to why the respondent No.6 in WP.No.19692 of 2020 has filed the translated versions of the meetings of the Grama Sabha to suit their stand when compared to the vernacular versions. These acts of the respondent No.6 would indicate that the Rules governing the conduct of Grama Sabhas were not followed, and, as such, the respondent No.1 could not have acted upon the said resolutions, which were initiated at the behest of the then MLA, without actually conducting the Grama Sabha. 24. The Government has power to merge or de-merge any village or area into any Municipality subject to the procedure established under law being followed and the requisite meetings are held and conducted in accordance with the relevant Rules. The action of the Government in considering the merger or de-merging of any area into any Municipality cannot be challenged as a matter of fundamental right when all prevailing rules and regulations are followed, and the public interest in that area is kept in mind. Individual rights cannot prevail over the broader public interests in that area. 17 25. The completion of the term of elected members of the Municipality should not be considered as a precedent for discarding GOMs.No.260 and GOMs.No.83. The election of the impleaded respondents to the Municipality was held to be subject to the outcome of WP No. 19692 of 2020. This Court cannot undo the term of the elected representatives of the Ward Nos.2,1,3 and 5 of Chilakaluripeta Municipality of erstwhile Ganapavaram Grampanchayat. However, this Court can set aside GOMs.No.260 and GOMs.No.83, which were passed in violation of the relevant Rules and Laws. 26. Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.83, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (G) Dept. dated 28.01.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.260, RP&RD (E&R) Dept., dated 28.01.2020 are hereby set aside, and accordingly WP.No.19692 of 2020 is allowed. 27. Insofar as WP.No.7523 of 2026 is concerned, this Court has allowed WP.No.19692 of 2020 and the procedure adopted by the respondents for de-notifying and de-merging of the three Gram Panchayats cannot be found fault with. The grounds raised by the petitioner for interference in the procedure followed by the respondents by passing the appropriate resolutions in the Grama Sabhas and the Council of the Municipality cannot be found fault with,, and accordingly, WP.No.7523 of 2026 deserves to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, WP.No.19692 of 2020 is allowed and WP.No.7523 of 2026 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 18 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date : 25.08.2026 KGM Note : LR Copy to be marked B/o.KGM Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ 19 52 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION Nos.19692 of 2020 and 7523 of 2026 Date: 25.08.2026 LR Copy KGM