Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while disposing of a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued for proposed removal of the Mayor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation, held that the State Government's power under Section 679-B of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 is distinct and independent from the disqualification procedure under Section 23-D, and issuance of the impugned show cause notice cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, K. Suresh Babu, was elected as a Counsellor in the Kadapa Municipal Corporation in 2021 and subsequently became Mayor on 18.03.2024. A notice dated 17.02.2025 was issued by the Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No.3) regarding an enquiry into contracts awarded to M/s. Vardhini Constructions, a firm allegedly run by close relatives of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that notice in W.P. No. 6407 of 2025 on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. While the earlier writ petition was pending, Respondent No.1 (State Government) issued a separate show cause notice dated 24.03.2025, making reference to a complaint lodged by Respondent No.5 and a related enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. The notice cited alleged irregularities in awarding contracts to M/s. Vardhini Constructions and invoked Sections 22(1)(h), 23(1), and 679-B (2) of the Act, proposing the petitioner’s removal as Mayor. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging this notice.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that Section 22 of the Act pertains only to pre-election disqualification and cannot be applied to a person already elected. He submitted that post-election disqualification must follow the procedure prescribed under Section 23-D, which involves reference to the District Court, and thus the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 679-B is without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the decision in Chava Rosaiah v. Chintala Venkateswarlu, arguing that where a special procedure is laid out by statute, the Government cannot invoke a general provision to bypass it. It was further submitted that the impugned action was politically motivated and influenced by Respondent No.5.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the show cause notice is a preliminary step providing the petitioner with adequate opportunity to explain, and no final action had been taken. It was further argued that Section 679-B of the Act provides independent residuary powers to the Government for removal of a member and does not conflict with Section 23-D, which is limited to disqualification on certain grounds. Further it was submitted that the availability of multiple statutory routes does not invalidate the exercise of power under Section 679-B, especially where the conduct of the elected representative is under scrutiny for alleged misuse of office.
Observations of the Court:
The Court, upon hearing the respective counsel and perusing the impugned show cause notice and relevant statutory provisions, noted that the impugned notice dated 24.03.2025 issued by Respondent No.1 is only a Show Cause Notice and not a final order, and therefore, 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. It was observed that the powers conferred under Section 679-B of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, enable the Government to remove a member of a municipal corporation on grounds of misconduct or irregularity, and these powers are distinct from and not subordinate to the disqualification mechanism under Section 23-D. The Court held that both these provisions apply in independent spheres, and accordingly, the contention of the petitioner regarding lack of jurisdiction was found to be untenable.
The Court rejected the contention that the issuance of the notice under Section 679-B was without jurisdiction, stating that it cannot be held illegal merely because a parallel procedure exists under another provision. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had not been prejudiced at this stage, as sufficient opportunity to reply had been granted. On the argument of political motivation and malice, the Court noted that such issues involve disputed questions of fact that are not fit for adjudication at the stage of a show cause notice. The Court declined to interfere on this ground, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise those contentions before Respondent No.1 during the adjudication process.
However, considering the petitioner’s request, the Court directed Respondent No.1 to furnish all documents relied upon in the show cause notice and granted the petitioner an additional three weeks to respond.
The decision of the Court:
The Court declined to interfere with the show cause notice, holding that it was legally sustainable under Section 679-B of the Act. However, it directed the respondent authority to provide the petitioner with all documents relied upon in the notice and granted three weeks’ additional time to submit a reply. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: K. Suresh Babu vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nyapathy Vijay
Case No: W.P. No. 9197 of 2025
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri
Advocate for the Respondent: GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development; GP for General Administration
Picture Source :
