Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Single Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay dismissed a writ petition challenging the issuance of a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson of Bobbili Municipality. The petitioner sought to invalidate the notice dated April 7, 2025, on the grounds of procedural defect, particularly the absence of a date on Form-I notice submitted by the councillors. The court held that "in the absence of any objection from the signatories to the Form-I to the proposed meeting, it would not be open to the petitioner piggy back on objections available to the members."

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Savu Venkta Murali Krishna, aged 67, serving as Chairperson of Bobbili Municipality. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the notice dated April 7, 2025, issued by the District Collector, Vizianagaram (Respondent No. 2), convening a municipal council meeting on April 29, 2025, to consider a no-confidence motion against him.

Also Read: “Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards Only in Limited Circumstances”: Supreme Court by 4:1 Allows Narrow Intervention Under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act

According to the petitioner, municipal elections in Bobbili Municipality took place in 2021. The elected body comprised 20 councillors from YSRCP, 10 from the Telugu Desam Party, one independent councillor, one ex-officio member (MLA), and three co-option members, bringing the total council strength to 35. The petitioner, elected from Ward No. 11, was subsequently chosen as the Chairperson of the municipality.

The petitioner became aware that 20 councillors had submitted a written notice in Form-I, expressing want of confidence against him, in accordance with Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. Pursuant to this, the Collector issued a notice in Form-II dated April 7, 2025, fixing April 29, 2025, as the date for the no-confidence motion meeting.

The primary ground of challenge was that the Form-I notice lacked both the date and the place of signing by the councillors. It was contended that this deficiency rendered the notice invalid and the ensuing Form-II notice defective. Citing Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Motion of No Confidence in Chairperson/Vice Chairperson) Rules, 2008, and Section 46(2) of the Act, the petitioner argued that the absence of date on the initiating Form-I prevented the determination of the thirty-day time limit within which the motion should be considered.

The petitioner was represented by Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala. The respondents were represented by Smt. S. Pranathi, Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State and its functionaries.

It was submitted by the petitioner that the legislative framework requires strict adherence to procedural requirements. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Mahendra Singh (2022 SCC Online SC 909), stating that "where the matter prescribes to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in the same manner." He also cited Smt. Ramaram Sujatha v. The State of Telangana (W.P. No. 28384 of 2018) and Vikash Kumar v. State of U.P. to support the argument that deviation from statutory formats makes such notices unsustainable.

Conversely, the Special Government Pleader submitted that the Form-I notice was duly received by the District Collector on April 2, 2025, as evidenced by the collectorate stamp on the submitted copy. She contended that since the no-confidence meeting was scheduled within thirty days from the said receipt, the impugned notice complied with the requirements under Rule 5 of the 2008 Rules. She also argued that the primary purpose of Form-I was to verify the genuineness of councillors' signatures and that the absence of the date was inconsequential since the signatories were not disputing their involvement or the timing.

Justice Nyapathy Vijay examined the legality and procedural validity of the no-confidence motion initiation and observed that "No-Confidence Motion is a proposal for removal resulting from loss of confidence of the members of the council and a majoritarian exercise." The court clarified that Form-I, as prescribed under the 2008 Rules, serves to inform the District Collector of such a proposal.

The court recorded that "the District Collector shall then verify the signatures of the signatories with reference to the signatures available in municipal records and after satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the signatures, shall issue a notice in Form-II to convene a meeting within 15 days as per Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules."

Regarding the 30-day timeframe, the court quoted Rule 5: "After proper verification of the signatures of the members in Form-I, the District Collector shall convene a meeting... which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which notice was delivered to him. He shall give to the members who are having right to vote, notice of not less than fifteen clear days..."

Addressing the main issue, the court stated: "The Rule 5 does not provide for any right to the petitioner and it would be odd to say that petitioner has a right of getting the No Confidence Motion enforced within 30 days. In the absence of any right, the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced by mere non-mention of date on Form-I."

The court found that the rule was designed to ensure prompt action by the District Collector and protect the rights of the signatories, not those of the person against whom the motion is proposed. Further, the court held that "in the absence of any objection from the signatories to the Form-I to the proposed meeting, it would not be open to the petitioner piggy back on objections available to the members."

Relying on Dr. Nallamothu Ruthrani v. State Government of A.P. (2009 SCC Online AP 530), the court reiterated that procedural requirements such as enclosing Form-I with Form-II or inclusion of date do not, by themselves, invalidate a no-confidence notice unless prejudice is shown. Quoting paragraph 13 of that judgement, it recorded: "In the case on hand from the text and context of Section 46(1) of the Act there appears no pejorative impact either to the interests of petitioner nor the public arising out of the failure to enclose a copy of the motion expressing 'want of confidence'."

Also Read: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Challenge to 15-Year Pension Rule, Says “Petitioners Having Derived the Benefit ; Cannot Now Challenge the Very Scheme”

The petitioner’s reliance on judgments under the Panchayat Act was found misplaced due to factual dissimilarities.

Concluding that the notice dated April 7, 2025, was procedurally valid, the court stated unequivocally: "This Court is of the opinion that the impugned notice dated 07.04.2025 is not defective and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala

For the Respondents: Smt. S. Pranathi, Special Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Andhra Pradesh

Case Title: Savu Venkta Murali Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Neutral Citation: APHC010215452025

Case Number: W.P. No. 10811 of 2025

Bench: Justice Nyapathy Vijay

[Read/Download order]