Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Notification for Casual Election of Kadapa Mayor Despite Short Remaining Tenure

Case Overview

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a judgment delivered by Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad on December 10, 2025, dismissed Writ Petition No. 34107 of 2025 filed by K. Suresh Babu, a former Mayor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation. The petitioner challenged a notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (SEC) on December 4, 2025, directing the conduct of an election to fill a casual vacancy in the office of Mayor.

Suresh Babu, aged 56 and an elected member of the Kadapa Municipal Corporation in YSR District, had been elected Mayor on March 18, 2021, for a five-year term ending March 17, 2026. He was disqualified and removed from office on September 23, 2025, via G.O. Rt. No. 1016, due to alleged irregularities in civil contract works executed through a family-owned firm, M/s. Vardhini Constructions. This disqualification is currently under challenge in another writ petition (W.P. No. 26724 of 2025), pending hearing on December 18, 2025, without any interim stay.

The respondents include the State of Andhra Pradesh (Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department), the SEC, the Election Authority and Commissioner of Municipal Administration, and the YSR Kadapa District Collector. The notification scheduled a special meeting for the Mayor's election on December 11, 2025, amid arguments that the corporation members' term ends in March 2026, leaving only about three months for any new Mayor.

Petitioner's Arguments

Represented by Senior Counsel P. Veera Reddy and Counsel V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, the petitioner contended that the notification was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Key grounds included:

• Short Tenure Futility : With the corporation's term expiring on March 17, 2026, electing a Mayor for just three months serves no useful purpose and wastes resources.
• Violation of Statutory Provisions : The notification contravenes Section 7(4) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (adopted for Kadapa), which prohibits casual elections within six months of the members' term expiry. The petitioner argued this bar applies equally to indirect Mayor elections under Section 90, as casual vacancies must be filled "in the same manner" as under Section 7.
• Constitutional Infringement : It breaches Article 243U(3)(b), emphasizing timely but purposive elections.
• Pending Disqualification Challenge : Issuing the notification while the disqualification order is sub-judice risks dual Mayors if the petitioner succeeds, creating administrative chaos.

The petitioner relied on Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor) Rules, 2005, and judgments from the Bombay High Court, including Manoj v. Maharashtra State Election Commission (2024 SCC OnLineBom 2578) and Sandeep Yashwantrao Sarode v. Election Commission of India (2019 SCC OnLineBom 629), advocating purposive interpretation to avoid elections at the "fag end" of terms.

Respondents' Counter-Arguments

Counsel for the SEC, Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, and Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Jhansi Lakshmi defended the notification, emphasizing the distinction between direct and indirect elections:

• Direct vs. Indirect Elections : Section 7 governs direct elections for corporation members (involving voter lists, nominations, and polling), while Section 90 provides for indirect elections of Mayor by existing members via show of hands on a party basis. The six-month bar in Section 7(4) applies only to direct casual vacancies for members, not to Mayor elections, which are simpler and quicker.
• No Statutory Bar : The phrase "casual election" in Section 90 refers to the indirect process among members, not importing Section 7's embargo. Conducting the election aligns with Section 90's mandate to fill vacancies promptly.
• Irrelevance of Cited Precedents : The Bombay cases dealt with direct elections (e.g., assembly by-elections), involving extensive processes unsuitable for short tenures. Here, the Mayor election is a brief internal procedure, not warranting similar restraint.
• Pending Challenge Irrelevant : Without an interim stay on the disqualification, the SEC acted lawfully post-removal.

The counter-affidavit clarified that "member" under Section 2(10) refers to directly elected persons, reinforcing the separation of election types.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles Applied

Justice Prasad analyzed the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, noting Sections 6 and 7 regulate members' terms and direct elections, while Section 90 distinctly governs Mayor elections by elected and ex-officio members. The court rejected importing Section 7(4)'s bar into Section 90, as the processes differ fundamentally: direct elections are public and elaborate, whereas Mayor elections are internal and expeditious.

The judgment distinguished the Bombay precedents, observing they addressed direct elections where short tenures undermine public interest due to logistical burdens. In contrast, the instant case involves no such complexity, and the SEC's actions under Article 243 were reasonable.

On the pending disqualification challenge, the court noted the absence of interim relief, affirming the disqualification's validity for now. It addressed the "dual Mayor" concern by stating that success in the other writ would retroactively nullify the new election, rendering it void ab initio without crisis.

Pivotal excerpt: "This Court is rather in agreement with the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the procedure and embargo contemplated in Section 7 cannot be read into Section 90 of the Act, 1955 inasmuch as the general election for filling-up of a casual vacancy of a Member contemplated under Section 7 is a ‘direct election’ whereas, the nature of the election contemplated under Section 90 of the Act, 1955 is admittedly an ‘indirect election’."

The court applied purposive interpretation but emphasized strict construction in election matters, declining to read down provisions to suit the petitioner's view.

Final Decision and Implications

The writ petition was dismissed, with no costs imposed, and interlocutory applications closed. The notification stands, allowing the December 11, 2025, election to proceed unless stayed.

This ruling clarifies the applicability of election bars in municipal laws, distinguishing direct and indirect processes. It reinforces the SEC's autonomy in filling leadership vacancies promptly, even near term ends, provided the election type aligns with statutory intent. For local governance in Andhra Pradesh, it ensures continuity in mayoral offices without undue judicial interference, potentially influencing similar challenges in other corporations. The outcome of W.P. No. 26724 of 2025 could still alter the status quo.