B Robert vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5573 AP

                HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
                           MAIN CASE : W.P.No.29818 OF 2023
                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.      Date                                  ORDER                                 OFFIC
No.                                                                                    E
                                                                                     NOTE

      17.11.2023
                   SRS, J
                                     W.P.No.29818 OF 2023
                           Rule nisi.
                           Call for records.
                           Learned Government Pleader for Municipal
                   Administration takes notice on behalf of respondent

No.1;

Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 offers to file vakalat and seeks time to get instructions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out notice to respondent No.3 by registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry.

Post the matter on 15.12.2023.

______ SRS,J I.A.No.1 of 2023

Heard Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.

As per the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, petitioner was suspended for a period of three consecutive months i.e. from 28.08.2023 with cumulative effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that suspending the writ petitioner from functioning for a period of three months is without jurisdiction as per the decision reported in Gattam Kasturi Bai and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2018 (2) ALD 67. In the judgment reported, learned Single Judge considered Section 51 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. The observations in Para No.6 of the judgment are as follows:

" ..... The condition precedent for pressing into service the said provision of law is that there should be persistent and willful obstruction of the business of the house by the members. In the instant case, it is not at all the case of the respondents herein that the petitioners herein behaved disorderly in previous meetings....."

Case at hand, as seen from the proceedings, the misbehavior pointed out by the petitioner is on 28.08.2023 In fact, in the judgment referred to supra, the learned Single Judge opined that suspending the petitioners therein for a period of three months, is without jurisdiction.

In view of the same, the proceedings vide Roc.No.575/2017/G1, dated 28.08.2023 are suspended for a period of four (4) weeks.

______ SRS,J KA