The requirement of Section 46(9) of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965, that the motion be put to vote, is not hedged in by any rigid procedure and is elastic enough to rise to the occasion to tailor to certain contingencies and situations.

( 1 ) THIS petition is for issuance of a writ to quash the publication of the results of the meeting of the Municipal councillors, Nalgonda held on 18-8-1984. The essential averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition may be stated.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was unanimously elected as the Chairman of the municipality of Nalgonda in July, 1983. On 31-7-1984 some of the councillors sent a written notice of intention to move no confidence motion in the chairman and pursuant to the said requisition the meeting was fixed on 18-8-1984. When the move for no confidence motion was initiated two of the councillors viz. , Mirza Ahmed Baig and Oruganti Rumulu were under detention under the National Security Act. In the meeting the petitioner filed an objection that the said two councillors could not be permitted to vote in the meeting. Thereupon the petitioner was informed by the revenue Divisional Officer who was presiding over the meeting that this court permitted the said two councillors to send their preference through the Superintendent of Jail. Inspite of the objections raised by the petitioner that Section 46 of the A. P. Municipalities Act does not contemplate such procedure the Revenue Divisional Officer permitted the said votes and published the results stating that the motion of no confidence was carried. To appreciate the controversy in this writ petition it is necessary to give a brief resume of the events culminating in this writ petition. The majority of the Municipal councillors presented a written application before the revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, stating that they have lost confidence in the Municipal Chairman viz. , Sri Borra Sudhakar in view of several lapses stated in the said application. Pursuant to such requisition the meeting for no confidence motion was convened on 18-8-1984. At the meeting the petitioner raised an objection to receive the opinion of sri M. A. Baig and Sri Oruganti Ramulu who are detained under the national Security Act. It is stated that the passing of no confidence motion should be done at a meeting of the councillors as no vote of the absentee councillors can be exercised. It was also alleged that the signatures of the motion of no confidence were obtained by way of forgery. This objection was overruled in view of the order of this court in W. P. M P. Nos. 16021 and 16022 of 1984. M. A. Baig and Oruganti Sri Ramulu who were detained under the National Security Act moved petitions being W. P. M. Ps. 16021 and 16022 of 1984 in W. P. Nos. 12291 and 12292 of 1984 for their release to enable them to attend Municipal councillors meeting at Nalgonda on 18-8-1984 pending the disposal of the writ petitions. This move was resisted by the Government stating that either temporary release or taking them with police escort to Nalgonda for the purpose of meeting for no confidence motion would lead to further crisis of law and order situation in the town. Taking into consideration these aspects the Division Bench of this court passed an order on 17-8-1984 as follows:"under these circumstances the Superintendent, Central Jail, warangal is directed to obtain from the petitioners, observing secrecy, their individual option in writing regarding the no confidence motion against the chairman and put the same in separate sealed covers and send them through a special messenger to the r. D. O. , Nalgonda, the presiding officer of the meeting to be held so as to reach him before 11 A. M. tomorrow i. e. , 18-8-1984. The option exercised by each of the petitioners shall be treated as their participation in the meeting fer no confidence motion and the same shall be treated as one expressed in person". The R. D. O. shall take into consideration the opinion thus expressed for or against the no confidence motion as the case may be for the purpose of no confidence motion.

( 3 ) IN the meeting convened on 18-8-1984 for consideration of the no-confidence motion the Revenue Divisional Officer to