Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5212
APHC010278352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3539]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 669 OF 2025 Between:
K. Suresh Babu ...APPELLANT AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri.
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Sri P. Vengala Reddy
2. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development B. 3. Sri Adi Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sr Sri Javvaji Sharath Chandra for respondent No.5.
The removal from office without proper hearing violates principles of natural justice, favoring the need for due process.
Headnote:The Writ Appeal challenges an interim order of removal from office as Mayor under G.O.Rt.No.446 for alleged irregularities, invoking powers under the G.H.M.C. Act. The petitioner argued lack of fair hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. The Court found prima facie case exists, asserting balance of convenience favored the petitioner, reversing previous judgment and directing status quo maintained until due process is followed. The Writ Appeal is allowed.
The Court made the following judgment:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Harinath. N)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents.
2. The present Writ Appeal is filed challenging the interim order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 22.05.2025 in W.P.No.13590 of 2025.
3. The petitioner has challenged G.O.Rt.No.446, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (G) Department, dated 14.05.2025, issued by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was removed from the office of Mayor, Kadapa Municipal Corporation for allegedly committing irregularities in execution of several civil contract works in Kadapa Municipal Corporation jurisdiction through M/s.Vardhini Constructions, which is allegedly owned by his family members. Respondent No.1, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 679 (B) (1) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act , 1955 (for short, “the G.H.M.C. Act”), held that the petitioner had disobeyed Section 22 – 1(h) read with Section 23(1) of “the G.H.M.C. Act”.
4. Sri S. Sriram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the show cause notice dated 24.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to violation of the provisions of “the G.H.M.C. Act” in executing the civil contracts through M/s.Vardhini Constructions. The petitioner filed W.P.No.9197 of 2025 challenging the issuance of the show cause notice. The learned single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, had permitted the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice by extending the period for submission of reply by three more weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order passed in the writ petition. The petitioner further filed a writ appeal bearing No.519 of 2025 and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2025, had disposed the writ appeal permitting the petitioner to submit his response and the concerned respondent to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard. The learned Division Bench of this Court further observed that if the order is adverse to the interest of the appellant in any manner, the same shall not be given effect to for at least a period of two weeks.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 issued a notice on 09.05.2025 calling upon the petitioner to attend the personal hearing proposed to be held on 13.05.2025 at 3:00 P.M. in the chambers of the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development at the Secretariat, Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.05.2025 requesting to grant two weeks’ time to enable him to take the assistance of a legal practitioner for defending his case. It is submitted that the impugned order in the writ petition was passed on 14.05.2025. Aggrieved by the said impugned order in the writ petition, the petitioner preferred another writ petition vide W.P.No.13590 of 2025. The learned single Judge, vide order dated 22.05.2025, had refused to grant any interim relief and it was held by the learned single Judge that the petitioner has not demonstrated a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour for passing interim order much less that of suspension as prayed for.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot be assumed to be vigilant of the contracts which are allegedly executed by his family members and such assumption without any determination cannot be held against the petitioner. It is submitted that the contracts which are allegedly executed by M/s.Vardhini Constructions were not placed before the council for the petitioner to have knowledge of the same. As such, it cannot constitute a violation under Section 23(1)(a) of “the G.H.M.C. Act”. That apart, the power of the State in invoking Section 679-B (2) of “the G.H.M.C. Act” would mandate
