“Show Cause, Not Show Down”: AP High Court Declines Interference in Mayor’s Disqualification Row, Says ‘Power Under Section 679-B Exists Independently
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay declined to interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued to an elected Mayor and instead directed Respondent No.1 to provide all documents relied upon in the notice. The Court further extended the time to respond by three weeks from the receipt of the order. The writ petition challenging the legality of the notice was accordingly disposed of.
The petitioner was elected as a Councillor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation in 2021 and later elected as Mayor on 18 March 2024. The matter arose when Respondent No.3, referring to Section 22(1)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (“the Act”), issued a notice on 17 February 2025 (vide Roc.No.99/KMC/E1/2024), calling for an explanation regarding municipal contracts awarded to M/s. Vardhini Constructions. The concern stemmed from the firm’s alleged close connection to the petitioner, as its managing partners were stated to be close relatives.
Asserting that the notice issued by Respondent No.3 exceeded the authority conferred under the Act, the petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P. No.6407 of 2025.
Subsequently, on 24 March 2025, Respondent No.1 issued a second show cause notice (Memo No.2748808/G/2025). This notice referenced a complaint filed by Respondent No.5 and the resulting inquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. The allegations included that M/s. Vardhini Constructions, registered as a Class-V contractor on 15 May 2023, was awarded ten municipal works, of which seven were completed and three had not commenced. The Government alleged that the petitioner’s conduct violated Section 22(1)(h) and Section 23(1) of the Act.
Invoking Section 679-B(2) of the Act, Respondent No.1 called upon the petitioner to explain why he should not be disqualified and removed from the mayoral post due to the alleged irregularities.
The petitioner contended that Section 22 deals with disqualification before election and does not apply to an already elected member. The relevant disqualification provision, it was argued, is Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, and any removal must follow the procedure in Section 23-D, which mandates a reference to the District Court.
In support, the petitioner cited the Division Bench ruling in Chava Rosaiah v. Chintala Venkateswarlu & Anr. [2004 (1) ALD 54 (DB)], asserting that a special procedure under the Act precludes invoking residuary powers under Section 679-B for the same cause.
It was further submitted that both the notice from the Commissioner and the Government were allegedly politically motivated and instigated by Respondent No.5, making them mala fide in law. The petitioner also argued that his office had no involvement in awarding the works in question.
On behalf of the State, the learned Government Pleader contended that the notice was merely a show cause notice and did not amount to a final order. It was argued that the invocation of Section 679-B, a residuary power provision, did not invalidate the proceedings. It was further submitted that while Section 23-D pertains to disqualification, Section 679-B permits the Government to remove a member for misconduct. The two provisions, it was argued, operate independently.
The petitioner restated the request for reasonable time and access to all documents cited in the impugned notice to properly respond.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay stated, “the impugned notice is only a Show Cause Notice and it cannot be said that merely the procedure prescribed under Section 23-D of the Act is not followed, it cannot be said that there is no power for the State Government to issue notice under Section 679-B of the Act.”
The Court observed that “the power under Section 679-B is available to the Government to remove a Member for the grounds mentioned therein, while Section 23-D of the Act applies when the Commissioner has given intimation to the Member of the disqualification and when the Member disputes the same. Both these provisions apply in independent spheres.”
The Court also addressed the issue of jurisdiction, stating that “the contention of lack of jurisdiction may not arise in this case.” It clarified that procedural distinctions between removal and disqualification under the Act do not negate the validity of the show cause notice.
Additionally, taking note of the procedural requests made during the hearing, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner sought reasonable time and access to documents forming the basis of the notice. This aspect was taken into consideration while issuing the final directive.
The High Court concluded that it was not inclined to interfere at the current stage, as the challenged action was a preliminary procedural measure.
The Court stated: “Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned at this stage and leaving the factual issues and contention regarding the Show Cause Notice having been issued solely at the instance of Respondent No.5 and suffers from malice in law to be considered by Respondent No.1.”
However, the Court issued the following directions:
“Taking into consideration the submission of the learned senior counsel, the Respondent No.1 is directed to provide all the documents relied upon in the impugned Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner and the time for the Petitioner to respond to reply to the Show Cause Notice is extended by a further period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order.”
The writ petition was disposed of without costs. It was further recorded that “the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: V R Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate
Case Title: K. Suresh Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010180622025
Case Number: W.P. No. 9197 of 2025
Bench: Justice Nyapathy Vijay
[Read/Download order]
