Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Manam Venkata Pranav Gopal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1366, 1781 of 2020
Decided on : 26-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
Ginjupalli Subba Rao, Advocate
Point of Law: when the rules are not complied strictly, the Court can interfere with such process by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When respondent No.3 did not publish notification in three (3) languages as required under Rule 8 and 11 of the Rules, 1996
Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules, 1996 - Constitution of Indian - Article 226 -Questioning the action of the 3rd Notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, by fixing the boundaries for delimitation of all the 98 wards in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as per the boundary description mentioned in the notification, in violation of Rules, 1996, and to declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Rules,1996 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to fix the boundaries for delimitation of all the 98 wards in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation – held, action of the respondents in the process of delimitation appears to be objectionable and contrary to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 despite raising such objection as to 10% variation on the average population. Such objection was not considered even at the time of issuing final notification though writ petition No.1366 of 2020 is pending before this Court and the Officials are aware of the pendency of the writ petition No.1366 of 2020, such conduct of the officials is highly reprehensible. The officials are bound to work in accordance with law, irrespective of the party in power. The political parties may come into power and go after sometime, but the officials will continue to serve till their retirement from service. It appears from the material on record, the respondents - officials by exhibiting over enthusiasm utterly violated Rule 5 of the Rules 1996, but in view of Article 243-ZG, the hands of the Court are tied. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the election process at this stage, in view of the Constitutional bar on the powers of this Court - writ petitions are dismissed
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner is the resident of H.No.177/14, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (here in after referred as 'GVMC') is the chief governing body of Visakhapatnam City. Visakhapatnam is one of the oldest municipalities in the Andhra region. It was set up as a municipality in 1858 later upgraded as Corporation in 1979. The GVMC was formed on 21.11.2005 by including the areas of the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, the Gajuwaka Municipality and 32 villages. The GVMC is administered by an elected body headed by the Mayor. Now, the GVMC is further expanded by merging the municipalities of Bheemili and Anakapalle.
Finding of the court:
action of the respondents in the process of delimitation appears to be objectionable and contrary to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 despite raising such objection as to 10% variation on the average population. Such objection was not considered even at the time of issuing final notification though writ petition No.1366 of 2020 is pending before this Court and the Officials are aware of the pendency of the writ petition No.1366 of 2020, such conduct of the officials is highly reprehensible. The officials are bound to work in accordance with law, irrespective of the party in power. The political parties may come into power and go after sometime, but the officials will continue to serve till their retirement from service. It appears from the material on record, the respondents - officials by exhibiting over enthusiasm utterly violated Rule 5 of the Rules 1996, but in view of Article 243-ZG, the hands of the Court are tied. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the election process at this stage, in view of the Constitutional bar on the powers of this Court
Result: writ petitions are dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
This Writ Petition No.1366 of 2020 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian questioning the action of the 3rd Notification vide Rc.No.9180/2005/TPSec/G1, dated 10.01.2020, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 11.01.2020, by fixing the boundaries for delimitation of all the 98 wards in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation as per the boundary description mentioned in the notification, in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules, 1996, (for short 'Rules, 1996) and to declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Rules,1996 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to fix the boundaries for delimitation of all the 98 wards in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation by strictly following the Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules,1996.
2. The Writ Petition No.1781 of 2020 is filed questioning the action of respondent No.3 in issuing the notification in Form-VI vide Rc.No.9180/2005/TPSec/G1 dated 23.01.2020, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 24.01.2020 for delimitation of wards in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation without following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules, 1996 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, consequently, quash the notification issued in Form-VI vide Rc.No.9180/2005/TPSec/G1 dated 23.01.2020, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 24.01.2020 and direct the respondents to fix the boundaries for delimitation of all the wards in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation by strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Delimitation of Wards) Rules, 1996 (for short "Rules, 1996").
3. The contentions raised in both the petitions are identical except adding few grounds in Writ Petition No.1781 of 2020, with regard to the observations made during the pendency of the Writ Petition No.1366 of 2020 and change of Form-I to Form-VI under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1996. Hence, I deem it appropriate to decide both the petitions by common order.
4. The petitioner is the resident of H.No.177/14, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam. It is alleged that the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (here in after referred as 'GVMC') is the chief governing body of Visakhapatnam City. Visakhapatnam is one of the oldest municipalities in the Andhra region. It was set up as a municipality in 1858 later upgraded as Corporation in 1979. The GVMC was formed on 21.11.2005 by including the areas of the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, the Gajuwaka Municipality and 32 villages. The GVMC is administered by an elected body headed by the Mayor. Now, the GVMC is further expanded by merging the municipalities of Bheemili and Anakapalle.
5. The 1st respondent issued G.O.M.S.No.358, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G), Department, dated 31.12.2019, including the Grampanchayats of K.Nagarapalem, Kapuluppada, Chepaluppada, Nidigattu and J.V.Agraharam into the limits of GVMC.
6. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.18, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G2), Department, dated 10.01.2020 by fixing the strength of elected members of GVMC at 98 by increasing it from the present strength of 72. A Preliminary Notification vide Rc.No.9180/2005/TPSec/G1, dated 10.01.2020 was issued by the 3rd respondent by fixing the boundaries of all the 98 wards unilaterally merely to further the political interest of the party in power without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules,1996, published by G.O.Ms.No.570, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Elec2), (M.A) Department, dated 06.11.1996. As per Rule 4 of the above G.O., the area of the Corporation shall be divided into Wards as notified by the Government under Rule 3, duly taking in
