THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Public Interest Litigation Nos.119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 141 , 142, 143, 144, 184, 185, 186, 131, 241, 243 and 261 of 2013 DATED:21.10.2013 PIL No. 119 of 2013 Between:

Guvvala Venkateswara Rao … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, Hyderabad and others.

….Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU Public Interest Litigation Nos.119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 141 , 142, 143, 144, 184, 185, 186, 131, 241, 243 and 261 of 2013 Common Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

By this batch of petitions, all the petitioners have challenged the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 99, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 18.3.2013 issued by the

1st respondent and the consequential order issued in G.O. Ms.

No. 94, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Elec.II) Department, dated 18.3.2013 by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and void.

By these Government Orders, the Government has decided to include certain areas of Gram Panchayats with Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. The impugned orders have been passed for inclusion of the number of Gram Panchayat areas with the Rajahmundry Municipality though intended to be meant for Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken exception to the aforesaid portion of the order contending that there is no existence of Rajahmundry Municipality as on the date of issue of the impugned orders the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation has come into being.

We are of the view that this is a curable mistake and the object of the impugned orders is very clear to establish that the orders are made for inclusion of certain Gram Panchayats with the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, the respondents shall issue a Corrigendum to that effect.

The next ground which has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the concerned Gram Panchayats adopted the resolution opposing to the decision for inclusion of these areas with the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation and such resolutions were not lawfully cancelled by the Government before taking a decision for inclusion as required under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which provides as follows:

“Section 246: Power to cancel or suspend resolution of a Gram Panchayat, Mandal Praja Parishad or a Zilla Praja Parishad:

(1) The Government may either suo motu or on a reference made to them by the Executive Authority or Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer or as the case may be, the Chief Executive Authority, in the manner prescribed by order in writing cancel any resolution passed by a Gram Panchayat, Mandal Praja Parishad or a Zilla Praja Parishad or any Standing Committee of a Zilla Praja Parishad, if in their opinion such resolution, ___

(a) is not legally passed; or (b) is in excess or abuse of the powers conferred by or under this Act, or any other law; or (c) on its execution is likely to cause danger to human life, health or safety or is likely to lead to riot or affray.

(2) The Government shall before taking action under sub-

section (1), give the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Praja Parishad or the Zilla Praja Parishad, as the case may be, an opportunity for explanation.

(3) If in the opinion of the District Collector, immediate action is necessary to suspend a resolution on any of the grounds referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1), he may make a report to the Government and the Government, may, by order in writing, suspend the resolution.”

According to us, this ground has got certain relevancy to examine the validity and legality of the impugned orders. As against these allegations, in the counter