State Govt Can Issue Removal Notice To Mayor U/S 679-B Of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act Despite Procedure U/S 23-D Not Being Followed: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that merely because the procedure prescribed under Section 23-D of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (“the Act”) is not followed, it cannot be said that the State Government possesses no power to issue notice under Section 679-B of the Act.Section 23-D of the Act refers to disqualifications of Members and Mayor of the Municipal Corporation whereby the Commissioner gives an intimation to the Member or Mayor upon receiving an allegation that he is not qualified or has become disqualified. Section 679-B pertains to the government's power to remove the Mayor or Deputy Mayor who wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act by giving him an opportunity for explanation.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay, further explained that,“The power under Section 679-B is available to the Government to remove a Member for the grounds mentioned therein, while Section 23-D of the Act applies when the Commissioner has given intimation to the Member of the disqualification and when the Member disputes the same, both these provisions apply in independent spheres. Therefore, the contention of lack of jurisdiction may not arise in this case.”BackgroundThe Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued against the petitioner, who was the Mayor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation. On 17.02.2025, the Kadapa Municipal Corporation (Respondent 3) issued notice stating that an enquiry was to be conducted regarding the works executed to M/s. Vardhini Constructions (“the firm”), whose Managing Partners were close relatives of the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to submit an explanation by referring to Section 22(1)(h) the Act. Alleging the said notice to be beyond the scope of enquiry of Respondent 3, the petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.No.6407 of 2025) before the High Court. Meanwhile, Respondent 1 issued another show cause notice dated 24.03.2025 (“impugned notice”) which made reference to a complaint against the petitioner made by one Smt. Madhavi Reddappagari (Respondent 5) and an enquiry by Vigilance and Enforcement Department on the said complaint. The allegation in the show cause notice was that the firm had executed ten works for the Municipal Corporation, out of which seven works were completed and three were yet to start. The impugned notice referred to Sections 22(1)(h) and Section 23(1) of the Act and as the conduct of the petitioner was said to be in violation of the same, the petitioner was called upon to submit explanation in terms of Section 679-B(2) of the Act as to why the petitioner should not be disqualified and removed as Mayor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation for the irregularities mentioned in the impugned notice. Challenging the same, the petitioner approached the High Court.The petitioner argued that his office was nowhere involved in the process of granting works and the enquiry, show cause notices issued by the Commissioner and the impugned notice, were all politically motivated and suffered from malice in law as they were only at the instance of Respondent 5. It was stated that the disqualifications for an elected Member were prescribed under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act and the procedure that had to be followed was prescribed in Section 23-D, which pertained to reference to the District Court. As a special procedure was prescribed under the Act, the petitioner urged that the Government could not have issued the impugned notice under Section 679-B of the Act. Contrary to this, the respondents argued that the impugned notice was only a show cause notice and the petitioner was given sufficient time to respond, and merely because the Government had exercised its residuary power under Section 679-B of the Act, the same could not be said to be without jurisdiction.The Court held that the impugned notice was only a show cause notice and the State Government possessed the requisite power to issue notice under Section 679-B of the Act, despite the procedure prescribed under Section 23-D not being followed. The Court further held,“As regards the contention that the Show Cause Notice suffers from malice as they have initiated at the instance of Respondent No.5, this Court is not inclined to examine that particular aspect at this stage and cast aspersion in the decision making process. The further argument regarding merits of the case and allegations in the Show Cause Notice, it would be appropriate for the Petitioner urge those aspects before Respondent No.1. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned at this stage and leaving the factual issues and contention regarding the Show Cause Notice having been issued solely at the instance of Respondent No.5 and suffers from malice in law to be considered by Respondent No.1.”The High Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition.Case Details:Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 9197/2025Case Title: K Suresh Babu v. The State Of Andhra ...

State Govt Can Issue Removal Notice To Mayor U/S 679-B Of A.P. Municipal Corporation Act Despite Procedure U/S 23-D Not Being Followed: AP High Court

Saahas Arora

Tags