( 1 ) THE parties shall be referred to, as arrayed in W. P. No. 25657 of 2001.

( 2 ) BOTH the writ petitions are concerned with the motion of No-Confidence against the Vice-Chairman of Proddatur Municipal Council, who is the 1st petitioner in W. P. No. 25657 of 2001 and the only petitioner in W. P. No. 27051 of 2001. W. P. No. 25657 of 2001 is filed challenging the notice dated 3-12-2001, issued by the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, and whereas W. P. No. 27051 of 2001, is filed questioning the legality and propriety of the method and manner in which the meeting was conducted by the Joint Collector on 22-12-2001. Since the submissions in the vacate stay application and the main writ petitions are substantially the same, and the questions that arise for adjudication are also common, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the writ petitions itself were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) ELECTIONS to Municipal Council, Proddatur, were held in February-March, 2000. The 1st petitioner was elected as Vice-Chairman on 12-4-2000, and he assumed Office on the same day. According to him, on 8-12-2001, the 3rd petitioner received the impugned notice dated 3-12-2001, inter alia informing her that the majority of the Councillors proposed a motion of No-Confidence against the 1st petitioner, and called upon her to attend the meeting scheduled to be held on 22-12-2001 at 11-00 A. M. in the Meeting Hall of Proddatur Municipal Council.

( 4 ) ON 19-12-2001, this Court while ordering notice before admission directed that the result of the meeting to be held on 22-12-2001 shall not be announced until further orders. Accordingly, the meeting was held, but the result was not declared.

( 5 ) FIVE Councillors who are signatories to the notice of intention have filed two applications in W. P. No. 25657 of 2001 - one application being W. P. M. P. No. 1215 of 2002 for impleading them as respondents 4 to 8, which is ordered, and the other application being W. V. M. P. No. 93 of 2002 for vacating the interim order granted by this Court on 19-12-2001.

( 6 ) SRI. P. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised the following submissions: (I) The notice of intention which has put the procedure in motion was not in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 46 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short the Act ) in that, when the total sanctioned strength of the Municipal Council is 39, only 19 Councillors signed the notice of intention for moving the motion expressing want of confidence; (ii) The signature of the 3rd petitioner Smt. Susheelamma was forged on the notice of intention; (iii) The 1st respondent-Joint Collector, who received and issued the notice of intention is not competent under the provisions of the Act to issue such a notice; (iv) The motion of No-Confidence was not enclosed to the notice of intention, and as required under Section 46 (3) of the Act, 15 clear days of such meeting, was not given before convening the meeting for considering the motion of No-Confidence; Apart from the above submissions, the learned counsel submitted that the whole proceedings during the course of the meeting were not initiated for the reason that no debate, as required under sub-section (7) of Section 46 of the Act, was allowed. Though initially the Joint Collector prescribed the voting by secret ballot, the same was given a go by, and the members present during the meeting voted by show of their hands. The minutes of the whole proceedings was not properly drafted. Instead of drafting the minutes immediately after the proceedings, they were drafted in the evening of 22-12-2001 in the Chambers of the Municipal Commissioner. He further submitted that the 1st respondent-Joint Collector is not competent to preside over the meeting.

( 7 ) THE 1st respondent-Joint Collector filed a detailed counter on the basis of the records, which were produced befo