Bar On Casual Elections Doesn't Apply To 'Indirect Election' Of Mayor Under Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act: AP High Court

As against this, a writ petition was filed by the last Mayor of the Corporation (petitioner) seeking to declare the said Notification as arbitrary, colourable exercise of power and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner referred to Section 90(1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955— which provides that a Mayor shall be elected by members of the corporation and the ex-officio members by a show of hands on party basis duly obeying the party whip, and any casual vacancy in the office of the Mayor shall also be filled in the same manner.

He further referred to Section 7(4)— which prescribes that no casual election shall be held within six months before the date on which the term of office and its members expires by efflux of time.

As the term of the Members of the Municipal Corporation was to expire in about three months, the petitioner had argued that the impugned Notification was squarely covered within the ambit of Section 7.

Noting that the Court cannot read the procedure and embargo contemplated in Section 7 of the Act, 1955 into Section 90 of the Act, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,

“… the procedure and embargo contemplated in Section 7 cannot be read into Section 90 of the Act, 1955 inasmuch as the general election for filling-up of a casual vacancy of a Member contemplated under Section 7 is a “direct election” whereas, the nature of the election contemplated under Section 90 of the Act, 1955 is admittedly an “indirect election”. Similarly, this Court is also not in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. Senior Counsel in respect of the applicability of sub-section (4) of Section 7 to the present election of Mayor inasmuch as the election to a Mayor post is conducted on a scheduled date and time and at a venue where the elected Members would participate and elect the Mayor by show of hands.”

Background

The petitioner was to continue in office till March 2026, however, was removed from Mayorship in September 2025, on account of alleged irregularities committed in the execution of civil contract works. While the petitioner had challenged his removal from the post in a separate writ petition– which was pending before the High Court— the impugned notification was issued in the meanwhile by the State Election Commission for filing up of the casual vacancy.

Justifying the impugned Notification, the Respondents argued that petitioner's reliance on Section 7 is misplaced, as the provision contemplates a 'direct election' whereas the election to the post of Mayor is an 'indirect election'— wherein the existing eligible Members elect the Mayor from amongst them by show of hands, which is diametrically opposed to a direct election. Additionally, it was argued that a 'casual vacancy' which is to be filled-up in the same manner should only be understood in the context of 'indirect election'.

At the outset, the Court clarified that the procedure and embargo prescribed under Section 7 cannot be read into Section 90.

Notably, the High Court has not granted any interim protection to the petitioner in his separate petition challenging his removal from the post. On the aspect of the petitioner succeeding in the challenge to his removal from Mayorship, which would effectively give rise to a crisis inasmuch as two Mayors cannot operate at the same time, the Single Judge held,

“If the Writ Petitioner succeeds in the Writ Petition challenging the said Proceeding, it shall be deemed in law that the Petitioner will be automatically continue to officiate as Mayor and therefore, the consequent indirect election initiated vide Notification dated 04.12.2025 would become otiose and nonest in the eye of law.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.34107 OF 2025

Case Title: K.Suresh Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order