Telangana High Court
Jakka Venkat Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.951 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appears for
Mr. V.Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State of Telangana appears for respondent Nos.1
to 3.
Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appears for
Mr. B.Sathish, learned counsel for respondent No.22.
2. This intra court appeal arises out of an order dated
08.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of
2024 in W.P.No.21205 of 2024, by which the interlocutory
application filed by the appellant seeking stay of further
proceedings including the meeting scheduled on 09.08.2024 in
pursuance of the Form-I notice dated 18.07.2024 moved by the
respondent Nos.5 to 24 and Form-II notice dated 24.07.2024
issued by the District Collector, has been dismissed.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are
that the appellant was elected as Corporator of Ward No.1,
Peerzadiguda Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
'the Corporation') and thereafter was elected as Chairperson of
the said Corporation in 2020. The total number of Corporators
in the said Corporation was twenty six. On 06.05.2024, fourteen
Corporators moved a motion of no-confidence against the
appellant. Thereupon, the Collector issued Form-II informing the
Corporators that meeting of the Corporation takes place on
05.06.2024 at 11.00 a.m.
4. It is the case of the appellant that on 05.06.2024, twelve
out of twenty six Corporators abstained from attending the
meeting as they were abroad along with the appellant and five
Corporators had withdrawn their signatures. Thus, seventeen
out of twenty six Corporators had abstained or withdrawn their
signatures against the required quorum of eighteen Corporators
required to attend the meeting. According to the appellant, the
Collector therefore adjourned the meeting on the ground that the
same cannot be conducted without conclusion of criminal
proceedings in F.I.R.No.612 of 2024.
5. Thereafter, respondent Nos.5 to 24 moved another motion
of no-confidence on 18.07.2024 against the appellant. The
Collector again issued Form-II notice on 24.07.2024 in violation
of Section 37 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019. The
appellant thereupon challenged the aforesaid action in a writ
petition, namely W.P.No.21205 of 2024 challenging the Form-II
notice issued by the Collector. Along with the writ petition, an
application seeking stay of all further proceedings including the
meeting which was scheduled to be held on 09.08.2024 was
challenged by the appellant. The learned Single Judge by an
order dated 08.08.2024 has dismissed the interlocutory
application on the ground that the appellant has failed to make
out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Hence, this
Appeal.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that
the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the
Collector has no power to adjourn the meeting in view of Rule 10
of the Municipalities (Motion of No-confidence in
Chairperson/Vice-chairperson) Rules, 2008. It is further
submitted that the meeting scheduled to be held on 05.06.2024
could not be held for want of quorum and therefore, in view of
the mandate contained in Section 37 of the Telangana
Municipalities Act, 2019, the second motion of no-confidence
could not have been made against the appellant as the same
bars the motion within three years. In support of the aforesaid
submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 13.06.2024
in W.A.No.1508 of 2023 (P.Reethi Mune Gowda vs. the State
of Karnataka and others) and on a decision of the Supreme
Court dated 29.07.1988 in S.L.P. (C) No.7508 of 1988
(Chandrakant Khaire vs. Shantaram Kale and others).
7. We have considered the submissions and have perused the
record.
8. Admittedly, the writ petition filed by the appellant
challenging the action of the Collector in adjourning the meeting
on 05.06.2024 as well as the validity of notice dated 24.07.2024
is pending before the learned Single Judge. Admittedly, the
meeting for consideration of motion of no-confidence has been
held against the appellant on 09.08.2024 and a motion of
no-confidence has been passed. Therefore, it is not necessary to
examine the validity of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge refusing the grant of interim relief as the
challenge to the same has been rendered academic. However,
needless to state that any action taken during the pendency of
the writ petition shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition.
It is open for the appellant to make a prayer before the learned
Single Judge for expeditious hearing of the writ petition, if so
advised.
9. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_______________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
19.08.2024
Pln
