B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE first petition is the Vice-Chair-person of Narsapuram Municipality. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the Councillors of the same Municipality. They are aggrieved by the action of the third respondent, the Revenue divisional Officer, Narsapur, in issuing the impugned Proceedings Roc. No. L/3153/97, dated 12-9-1997" purporting to be under sub-section (2) of Section 46 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short the Act ). The said proceedings, according to the petitioners, suffers from incurable infirmity and ultra vires sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the Act. By the impugned proceedings, the third respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer convened the meeting of the Municipal Council, narsapur Municipality to be held on 30-9-1997 for considering the no-confidence motion moved by the Councillors against the Vice chair-person of the Municipal Council

( 2 ) THE Constitutional validity of section 46 of the Act is also challenged in the writ petition. But the same is not pressed during the course of submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Now, the writ petition is restricted to the issue relating to the legality and validity of proceedings dated 12-9-1997.

( 3 ) THE Petitioner No. 1 has been elected as Vice Chair-person in accordance with the rules known as A. P. Municipalities (Conduct of Election of Vice Chair-person) Rules, 1986. It is required to notice that Vice Chairperson of the Municipal Council does not enjoy any independent functions or duties, except to chair the proceedings of the Council in the absence of the Chairperson and to discharge such functions as may be delegated by the chairperson.

( 4 ) BE that as it may, Fifteen Councillors and the local Member of the Legislative assembly (MLA), who is the Ex-officio member of the Municipal Council delivered a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 46 of the Act on 8-9-1997 expressing no-confidence in the Vice Chairperson of the Municipal council. . The same is stated to have been delivered by two Councillors from among the signatories to the third respondent. However, there is a serious dispute as to whether the motion of no-confidence was annexed to the said notice to which I shall deal with later. The fact remains that such a notice was delivered to the third respondent-Revenue divisional Officer. The third respondent, revenue Divisional Officer by notice dated 12-9-1997, which is impugned in this writ petition, convened the meeting of the Municipal council to be held at the Office of the municipality on 30-9-1997 at 11-00 a. m. for considering the said motion of no-confidence.

( 5 ) THE Local M. L. A. , Sri Kothapalli janakiram is stated to have exercised his option for the purpose of becoming the Ex- officio member of the Municipality after a long time even though the elections to the State assembly were held more than two years back. The option has been exercised by the said m. L. A. , on 8-9-1997 informing the commissioner of the Municipality that he wishes to take oath of allegiance as Ex-officio councillor of the Narsapur. Municipality in any of the Council meetings to be held and further informing that he is an Ex-Officio councillor of the Narsapur Municipality. Having stated to so, he also signed the motion of no-confidence dated 8-9-1997. It is stated in the affidavit that the said M. L. A. could not have been treated as Ex-Officio Councillor unless he had taken the oath of allegiance under Section 386 of the Act and, therefore, he could not have signed the motion of no- confidence as Ex-officio Councillor of the municipality on 8-9-1997. The said M. L. A. could not have been treated as Ex-Officio councillor, inasmuch as, admittedly, no oath of allegiance was subscribed by him. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners did not state anything in support of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. As such it has to be taken that the point is not seriousl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document