Municipalities Act, 1965 — Motion of no-confidence in Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson — Sections 46(1), 46(2), 46(4) — procedural requirements — annexure of proposed motion; time-limits for convening the meeting; reading of motion and putting to vote — mandatory v. directory; consequences of non-compliance.
Held: (i) Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 constitutes a complete code prescribing the procedure for moving and deciding a motion of no-confidence against a Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson; the requirements of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) — namely, service of the Form (in the prescribed form) together with a copy of the proposed motion, convening the meeting not later than thirty days from receipt of the notice and giving not less than fifteen clear days’ notice, and reading out the motion and putting it to vote without debate — are mandatory and must be scrupulously followed where the legislature has prescribed the procedure for removal from an elective office of importance.
(ii) Where Form II (convening notice) does not carry or is not accompanied by the copy of the proposed motion which the presiding officer is statutorily required to read out under Section 46(4), and where the meeting is held beyond the thirty-day period mandated by Section 46(2), the entire exercise is vitiated and is a nullity in law. Substantial compliance cannot cure such mandatory non-compliance which affects the very object of the provision.
(iii) Accordingly the impugned proceedings (Ref.Coord (Elecs-1)/103/2025 dated 29.04.2025 and the meeting held on 15.05.2025) are set aside; writ petition challenging the same is allowed; consequential petitions (seeking to act on the invalid proceedings) are dismissed.
Order: W.P. No.12579 of 2025 — ALLOWED. W.P. No.17813 of 2025 — DISMISSED. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions closed.
-1-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.12579 OF 2025
%10.10.2025
#Gangireddy Aruna, w/o.Krishna Murthy,
Chairperson, Municipal Council, aged: 51 years,
R/o.D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram,
Neelamma Cheruvu, Samalakot-533 440. …Petitioner
And:
$1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its
Prl.Secretary, M.A. & U.D. Dept.,
Secretariat, Velagapudi-522 237.
2. The District Collector, Kakinada-533 001.
3. Samalkot Municipal Council rep.
by its Commissioner, Samlakot-533 440. ...Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu,
The learned Senior Counsel
Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad
^Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader
for MA & UD appearing for R.1
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue
For R.2
Learned Standing Counsel for R.3
+WRIT PETITION No.17813 OF 2025
%10.10.2025
#Rednam Suneetha, W/o. Venkat Rao,
Aged: 48 years, Councilor of Ward No.28,
Municipal Council of Samalakot, Municipality,
R/o.D.No.9-7-17, Nagisettivari Street, Samalkot,
East Godavari District- 533 440. …Petitioner
And:
2025:APHC:42477
-2-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
$1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its
Prl.Secretary, M.A. & U.D. Dept.,
Secretariat, Velagapudi-522 237.
2. The District Collector,
Kakinada District at Kakinada.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kakinada, Kakinada District.
4. Samalkot Municipality,
Rep. by its Commissioner, Samlakot, Kakinada District.
5. Smt. Gangireddy Aruna, w/o. Krishnmurthy,
Age: 51 years, R/o. D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram
Neelamma Cheruvu, Samlkot, Kakinada District.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu
^Counsel for the respondents : Learned Government Pleader
for MA & UD appearing for R.1
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue
For R.2 & R.3
Learned Standing Counsel for R.4
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2025:APHC:42477
-3-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WRIT PETITION No.12579 OF 2025
Gangireddy Aruna, w/o.Krishna Murthy,
Chairperson, Municipal Council, aged: 51 years,
R/o.D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram,
Neelamma Cheruvu, Samalakot-533 440. …Petitioner
And:
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Prl.Secretary,
M.A. & U.D. Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi-522 237.
2. The District Collector, Kakinada-533 001.
3. Samalkot Municipal Council rep.
by its Commissioner, Samlakot-533 440. ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.17813 OF 2025
Rednam Suneetha, W/o. Venkat Rao,
Aged: 48 years, Councilor of Ward No.28,
Municipal Council of Samalakot, Municipality,
R/o.D.No.9-7-17, Nagisettivari Street, Samalkot,
East Godavari District- 533 440. …Petitioner
And:
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Prl.Secretary,
M.A. & U.D. Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi-522 237.
2. The District Collector,
Kakinada District at Kakinada.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kakinada, Kakinada District.
4. Samalkot Municipality,
Rep. by its Commissioner,
Samlakot, Kakinada District.
2025:APHC:42477
-4-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
5. Smt. Gangireddy Aruna, w/o. Krishnmurthy,
Age: 51 years, R/o. D.No.10-3-28, Veera Raghavapuram
Neelamma Cheruvu, Samlkot, Kakinada District. ...Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.10.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No
be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
Copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
2025:APHC:42477
-5-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
APHC010251742025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3457]
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 12579/2025
Between:
Gangireddy Aruna ...PETITIONER
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu,
Learned Senior Counsel
Sri V.VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities
2.GP FOR REVENUE
3.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
WRIT PETITION NO: 17813/2025
Between:
Rednam Suneetha ...PETITIONER
AND
2025:APHC:42477
-6-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
2.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities
3.GP FOR REVENUE
4.JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO
The Court made the following:
2025:APHC:42477
-7-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION No.12579 OF 2025
&
WRIT PETITION No.17813 OF 2025
COMMON ORDER:
1. The petitioner in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 is challenging the
Ref.Coord (Elecs-1)/103/2025, dated 29.04.2025, issued as Form II
by the 2nd respondent as illegal.
2. The petitioner is the Chairperson of the 3rd respondent Municipal
Council. The Council members issued a notice in Form I on
02.04.2025, moving the motion of no confidence on the petitioner to
the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice
in Form II and duly informed the council members of convening the
meeting on 15.05.2025 vide the impugned proceedings.
3. Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P. No.12579 of 2025, submits that the procedure
adopted by the 2nd respondent in issuing the Form II notice is in
gross violation of Sections 46(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh
Municipalities act, 1965 [for short, „the Act, 1965’]. It is submitted
that Section 46(1) of the Act, 1965 mandates annexing a copy of the
proposed motion along with the Form. The motion of no confidence
ought to be annexed along with Form I.
2025:APHC:42477
-8-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
4. It is submitted that, as per the admission of the District Collector in
the counter, a copy of the proposed motion was not annexed to the
Form II notice. It is further submitted that the Collector could not
have convened a meeting beyond the period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of the Form I notice. It is also submitted that section
46(2) of the Act, 1965 would require the District Collector to convene
a meeting within 30 days of receipt of the motion of no confidence. It
is submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondents is in
gross violation of Sections 46(1) and (2) of the Act, 1965. It is also
submitted that the 3rd respondent in the counter also admits that a
copy of the proposed motion was not annexed to Form II. However,
the meeting was conducted on 15.05.2025 and 25 members
attended the meeting and expressed their no confidence on the
petitioner.
5. It is submitted that this Court, vide an order dated 09.05.2025,
declined to grant stay on the meeting for considering the motion of
no confidence, which was scheduled on 15.05.2025. However, it
was made clear that the motion of no confidence will be subject to
further orders in the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order passed by
this Court, W.A. No.761 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner, which
was disposed of on 04.07.2025 by duly observing that there was a
discrepancy in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner before
this Court regarding the date of submission of the notice of motion to
2025:APHC:42477
-9-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
the Collector as stated to be on 02.03.2025/02.04.2025. On account
of the said ambiguity, an opportunity was granted to the District
Collector to submit his response with regard to the date of receipt of
the notice of motion for determining the actual time period and as to
whether the provisions of Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965 are
mandatory or directory to be determined in the writ petition.
6. The Form I notice was received by the Collector on 02.04.2025.
Form II notice was issued on 29.04.2025, and the meeting was
convened on 15.05.2025. There is no dispute on these dates. The
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the
2
nd petitioner ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under
Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case
of Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone 1
, wherein the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court dealt with the distinction between mandatory rule
and directory rule, which was held that a mandatory rule must be
strictly observed, whereas in case of directory rule, substantial
compliance may be sufficient to achieve the object regarding which
the rule is enacted.
8. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of
the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of
1
AIR 1980 SC 303
2025:APHC:42477
-10-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
C.Puttaswamy, etc., v. Smt. Prema etc.,2 wherein the Full Bench
of the Karnataka High Court, while considering the issue of no
confidence motion against the Pradhan or Upa-Pradhan in terms of
Section 47(3) of Karnataka ZillaParishads, Taluk Panchayat
Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act (20 of
1985), held that Section 47 of the Karnataka ZillaParishads, Taluk
Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act
(20 of 1985) is a complete Code in itself, deliberately provided by the
legislature having regard to the importance of the elective office of
the Pradhan and Upa-pradhan, the need to ensure their stability in
office and, thus, to promote the objectives of Mandal Panchayats.
Section 47 is the only provision that applies to a „No-confidence‟
motion against the Pradhan or Upa-pradhan.
9. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of
the Hon‟ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, in the case of VanchaVeera Reddy and another v.
District Co-operative Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District and
others3
, wherein at paragraph 47 the Hon‟ble Division Bench held
that,
“47......(a) G.O. Ms. No.37, Agriculture & Co-operation
(Co-op.IV) Department, dated 28.1.2002 is not a mere
executive order, but duly amended the rules in exercise
2
AIR 1992 Karnataka 356
3
2010(3) ALD 526 (DB)
2025:APHC:42477
-11-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
of the statutory rule making power through the statutory
notification duly published in the Andhra Pradesh
Gazette.
(b) Under Section 34-A of the Act read with Rule 24-A of the
Rules, service of the notice of the meeting along with a copy of
the motion expressing no confidence in the prescribed form,
despatch of such notice for service with a gap of not less than
fifteen clear days between the date of despatch of the notice
and the date of meeting (with such date of despatch and date
of meeting being excluded in computing the gap period) and
such despatch for service of notice only in any of the
alternatives prescribed by sub-rule (2) of Rule 24-A and in no
other manner, are mandatory and any violation of any of such
mandatory requirements will make any such meeting or the
proceedings thereunder invalid and illegal,
(c) However, if there is only shortfall in the period from the
date of service of notice on a member as prescribed and the
date of meeting, the meeting or the proceedings thereunder
will become invalid only on some prejudice to such member
being proved, and
(d) Any cessation of membership under Section 21-A or
Section 21-AA or Section 21-B of the Act is not automatic, but
is subject to the decision of the General Body of the Society on
the recommendations of the Managing Committee, though any
resolution of the General Body in favour of cessation of
membership will take effect from the date of disqualification or
cessation.”
10. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the judgment of
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases under
2025:APHC:42477
-12-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (SuoMotu Writ
Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020)4
, wherein, at paragraph 20, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court held that,
“20. Section 143 of the Act mandates that the provisions
of summary trial of the Code shall apply "as far as may
be" to trials of complaints under Section 138. Section
258 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to stop the
proceedings at any stage for reasons to be recorded in
writing and pronounce a judgment of acquittal in any
summons case instituted otherwise than upon
complaint. Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to a
summons case instituted on a complaint. Therefore,
Section 258 cannot come into play in respect of the
complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. The
judgment of this Court in Meters & Instruments 13
insofar as it conferred power on the trial court to
discharge an accused is not good law. Support taken
from the words "as far as may be" in Section 143 of the
Act is inappropriate. The words "as far as may be" in
Section 143 are used only in respect of applicability of
Sections 262 to 265 of the Code and the summary
procedure to be followed for trials under Chapter XVII.
Conferring power on the court by reading certain words
into provisions is impermissible. A Judge must not
rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it.
Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policymaking might wisely suggest, construction must eschew
interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by
4
(2021) 16 SCC 116
2025:APHC:42477
-13-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
way of creation. The Judge's duty is to interpret and
apply the law, not to change it to meet the Judge‟s idea
of what justice requires. The Court cannot add words to
a statue or read words into it which are not there.”
11. It is submitted that the statue under section 46(1) of the Act, 1965
mandates the service of Form II along with a copy of the proposed
motion. Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965 fixes a time frame for
consideration of the motion on a date which shall not be later than 30
days from the date of notice referred to under sub-section (1) and 15
days advance notice to be given to the members. Having failed to
comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 46(1) and 46(2) of
the Act, 1965, the entire exercise would have to be set aside and the
impugned notice dated 29.04.2025 would have to be held as illegal
and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1965 and G.O.Ms. No.835
dt.03.12.2008.
12. The writ petitioner in W.P. No.17813 of 2025 submits that the no
confidence motion was passed against the writ petitioner in W.P.
No.12579 of 2025 by 25 members on 15.05.2025 and the
proceedings were not forwarded by the presiding officer to the 2nd
respondent for taking further steps to remove the petitioner from the
office of the Chairperson of Samalkota Municipal Council. The
Revenue Divisional Officer could not forward the council resolution
2025:APHC:42477
-14-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
dated 15.05.2025 on account of the pendency of the W.P. No.12579
of 2025.
13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Chairperson
would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file W.P.
No.17813 of 2025, as the issue is pending adjudication before this
Court and without considering the observation of this Court while
declining to grant stay on the meeting scheduled on 15.05.2025, the
writ petition could not have been filed.
14. I.A. No.2 of 2025 is filed in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 whereby one of
the Councillor of Ward No.28 sought to be impleaded as a party
respondent as the proposed respondent is confident of securing
majority from the members of the Council for being elected as the
next Chairperson provided further orders are passed removing the
petitioner as Chairperson.
15. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2
submits that there is no infirmity in the procedure adopted by the 2nd
respondent. It is also submitted that the intention of Form II was
sufficient to be conveyed and the same was duly considered and
accepted. It is also submitted that it is for the members of the
Council to object with regard to the non-compliance of Section 46(1)
or 46(2) of the Act, 1965.
16. The learned standing counsel for the Municipality also submits that
soon after the receipt of Form I notice, the 2nd respondent convened
2025:APHC:42477
-15-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
the meeting and issued Form II notice on 29.04.2025. It is submitted
that the meeting was convened within 30 days of receipt of Form I
notice. As such there is no violation of Rule 46(2) of the Act, 1965.
17. Heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner in W.P. No.12579 of 2025 and the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.17813 of 2025 and the
learned Government Pleader for the State and the learned Standing
Counsel for the Municipality.
18. Perused the record.
19. The short points for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned notice Ref.Coord
(Elecs-1)/103/2025, dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.
No.12579 of 2025 are issued in contravention
of Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965?
(ii) Whether it is mandatory for annexing the copy
of the proposed motion along with the relevant
Form to the District Collector?
POINTS (i) and (ii):
20. To decide the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to extract
Section 46 of the Act, 1965, which reads as under:
“46. Motion of no confidence in Chairperson/ViceChairperson:
(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the
Chairperson otherwise than directly elected or ViceChairperson may be made by giving a written notice
2025:APHC:42477
-16-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
of intention to move the motion, in such form as may
be specified by the Government, signed not less
than one half of the total number of members of the
Council having right to vote, together with a copy of
the proposed motion to the District Collector
concerned in accordance with the procedure
prescribed:
Provided that no notice of motion under this section
shall be made within three (3) years of the date of
assumption of office by the person against whom the
motion is sought to be moved:
Provided further that if the motion is not carried by twothird majority as prescribed or if the meeting could not be
held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent
motion expressing want of confidence in the same person
shall be made until after the expiration of one year from
the date of such first meeting:
Provided also that the membership of a suspended
member shall also be taken into consideration for
computing the total number of members and he shall also
be entitled to vote in a meeting held under this section.
(2) The District Collector shall, then convene a meeting
for the consideration of the motion at the office of
Municipal Council on the date appointed by him which
shall not be later than thirty days from the date on
which the notice under sub-section (1) was delivered
to him. He shall give to the Members, Chairperson or
Vice-Chairperson as the case may be and the ExOfficio Members, notice of not less than fifteen clear
days excluding the date of the notice and the date of
the proposed meeting of such meeting in such form
as may be prescribed by the Government and such
notice shall be delivered as may be specified.
Explanation:- In computing the period of thirty days
specified in this sub-section, the period during which a
2025:APHC:42477
-17-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
stay order, if any, issued by a competent Court on a
petition filed against a notice under sub-section (1) is in
force shall be excluded.
(3) The District Collector or the Revenue Divisional
Officer nominated by the District Collector (hereinafter
referred to as presiding officer) shall preside at such
meeting. The quorum for such meeting shall be twothirds of the total number of members. If within half an
hour after the time appointed for the meeting, there is
no quorum for the meeting, the Presiding Officer shall
adjourn the meeting to some other time on the same
date and notify the same in the notice board of the
Council. If there is no quorum at the adjourned time of
the same day, no further meeting shall be convened
for consideration of that motion and the meeting shall
stand dissolved and the notice given under subsection (1) shall lapse.
(4) As soon as the meeting convened under this section
commences, the said presiding officer shall read only
the motion for the consideration of which the meeting
has been convened and shall put it to vote without
any debate. The voting shall be by show of hands
duly obeying the party whip given by such functionary
of the recognized political party in the manner
prescribed:
Provided that a member voting under this sub-section
in disobedience of the party whip shall cease to hold
office forthwith and the vacancy caused by such
cessation shall be filled as a casual vacancy.
(5) A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a
copy of the motion and the result of the voting thereon
shall be forwarded immediately on the termination of
the meeting by the said presiding officer to the District
Collector. The District Collector shall forward the
same along with his remarks to the Government.
2025:APHC:42477
-18-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
(6) If the motion is carried with the support of two-thirds
majority of the total number of the members including
the ex-officio members as on the date of the meeting,
the Government shall by notification remove the
Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson as the case may be
from office and the resultant vacancy shall be filled in
the same manner as a casual vacancy.
Explanation I:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that for the purpose of this section the
expression "total number of members" means, all the
members who are entitled to vote in the election to the
office concerned including the ex-officio members.
Explanation II:- For the purposes of the section, in the
determination of two-thirds of the total number of
members, any fraction below 0.5 shall be ignored and any
fraction of 0.5 or above shall be taken as one.”
21. Sub-section (4) of Section 46 of the Act, 1965 makes its mandatory
for the presiding officer to read out the motion for consideration for
which the meeting has been convened. This section makes it clear
that the presiding officer would have to read the motion for which
the meeting is convened and put the motion to vote without any
debate. This provision makes it amply clear that the motion of
confidence would have to be essentially furnished along with Form
II.
22. On a query from this Court as to what was proposed motion which
was annexed to Form I or Form II, the learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P. No.17813 of 2025 fairly concedes that the
proposed motion is not annexed to Ex.P.1 i.e., Form I. The
2025:APHC:42477
-19-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
proposed motion is not placed before this Court by anybody
including the official respondents.
23. Insofar as the compliance of Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965 is
concerned, the statute mandates the District Collector to convene a
meeting for considering the motion at the office of the Municipal
Council within 30 days from the date of receipt of Form I notice.
The District Collector ought to convene meeting within 30 days from
the date of receipt of Form I notice by giving 15 clear days
excluding the date of notice and the date of the proposed meeting.
The District Collector ought to convene the meeting for the
presiding officer to read out the motion for consideration for which
the meeting has been convened. Convening the meeting would
imply scheduling and fixing the date. When the statue mandates
the District Collector to convene the meeting not later than 30 days
from the date of which the notice under sub-section (1) was
delivered to him, he could not have issued the impugned notice in
W.P. No.12579 of 2025 scheduling the meeting beyond 30 days
from the date of receipt of Form I notice.
24. When the District Collector and the Commissioner have
categorically admitted in their counters that when the copy of the
proposed motion was not annexed to Form II notice, it is not known
as to what was read out on 15.05.2025 for passing of the
Resolution.
2025:APHC:42477
-20-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
25. The provisions of Sections 46(1), 46(2), and 46(4) of the Act, 1965,
prescribe a mandatory procedure that is required to be followed.
The Act, 1965, has prescribed the procedure to be followed for the
motion of no confidence of the Chairperson/ Vice Chairperson. The
said procedure would have to be scrupulously followed and any
deviation from the said procedure would render the exercise as a
nullity in the eye of law. When a major decision of removing a
person from the post of Chairperson or Vice Chairperson, the
procedure as prescribed under law would have to be essentially
followed. The Act does not leave any scope for the authorities to
follow any other procedure and brush aside the procedure
prescribed under law. It is not the simple case of claiming that
majority members were aware of the purpose of the meeting
convened on 15.05.2025 and that the resolution was passed by the
majority members against the petitioner. There is no waiver for the
procedure prescribed under the Act.
26. As per Section 46(2) of the Act, 1965, and on the facts of this case,
the District Collector received Form I on 02.04.2025. He should
have convened and held the meeting on or before 02.05.2025. The
District Collector ought to have issued the notice of convening the
meeting on 16.04.2025. Admittedly, the meeting was held beyond
the statutory limit on 15.05.2025.
2025:APHC:42477
-21-
W.P. No.12579 & 17813 OF 2025
Date of order:10.10.2025
27. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings would have to be set aside.
The motion of no confidence was not annexed to Form II for the
presiding officer to read out the motion for which the meeting was
convened in terms of Section 46(4) of the Act, 1965. The Form II
notice dated 29.04.2025 is also in contravention of Section 46(1)
and 46(2) of the Act, 1965, as such, the impugned notice deserves
to be set aside.
28. The implead petition in I.A. No.2 of 2025 filed in W.P. No.12579 of
2025 does not warrant any merit in view of this Court setting aside
the impugned proceedings.
29. In view of this Court setting aside the impugned proceedings in
W.P. No.12579 of 2025, the writ petition in W.P. No.17813 of 2025
deserves to be dismissed.
30. In the result, W.P. No.12579 of 2025 is allowed and the W.P.
No.17813 of 2025 is dismissed. No costs.
31. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall
stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
BV
2025:APHC:42477
