IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3831 of 2009 Between: D. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Yerukal Reddy 18th Ward, Ponnur Municipality, R/o. Weavers Colony, Nidubrolu, Ponnur-522124, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Guntur. 3 The Municipal Commissioner, Ponnur Municipal Council, Ponnur Town, Guntur District. 4 The Chairperson, Ponnur Municipal Council, Dr. Nallamothu Ruthrani W/o. Dr. Ravindranath Tagore C/o. Ravi Nursing Home, GBC Road, Ponnur Town, Guntur District. 5 Dr. Nallamothu Ruthrani The Chairperson, Ponnur Municipal Council, W/o. Dr. Ravindranath Tagore C/o. Ravi Nursing Home, GBC Road, Ponnur Town, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to conduct the Ponnur Municipal Council Meetings peacefully, properly and strictly according to A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 and Rules thereunder and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PINNAMANENI RAMANA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner is a Ward Member of Ponnuru Municipal Council. Aggrieved by the manner in which respondent No.4, namely, the Chair- person of the Municipal Council is conducting the affairs of the Municipal Council, the petitioner, along with eighteen others, moved a requisition in proforma-1 to the 1st respondent-District Collector on 08.10.2008 for convening a meeting of No Confidence Motion against respondent No.4, and accordingly, the 1st respondent convened the meeting on 29.10.2008. Questioning the same, the 4th respondent filed writ petition in W.P. No.23282 of 2008. This Court, by an interim order dated 24.10.2008, ordered the conduct of the meeting of the No Confidence Motion, but directed that the result of the meeting shall not be announced. The applications filed by the petitioner and others seeking to implead themselves as party respondents and to vacate the interim order are pending. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent called for a meeting on 20.11.2008 for ratifying the agenda consisting of fourty two resolutions. Questioning the same, one of the Ward Members, filed writ petition in W.P. No.25487 of 2008 and this Court, while directing the conduct of the meeting, ordered that the resolutions to be passed shall not be given effect to. Thereafter, while extending the said order, granted liberty to proceed with the contractual works relating to sanitation and street lighting. While the said writ petition is pending, the petitioner states that the 4th respondent convened another meeting to ratify the revised and estimated budget funds, plans and primary education funds for the financial years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Questioning the same, the petitioner in W.P. No.25487 of 2008 filed another writ petition in W.P. No.1153 of 2009 and the same was disposed of with certain directions. It is the case of the petitioner that even though majority of the members voted against the resolutions except resolution Nos.2, 7 and 8, respondent No.4, without recording their dissent, has recorded as if majority of the members ratified the resolutions. The petitioner states that though they brought this to the notice of respondent Nos.2 and 3, they have not taken any action. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Ponnuru Municipal Counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Admittedly, the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 with regard to the conduct of No Confidence Motion and the writ petition filed by the petitioner and one other Ward Member with regard to ratification of resolutions are pending. In fact, in W.P. No.1153 of 2009, this Court directed facilitation of participation of all the ward members in the meetings and for expressing their views with reference to their agenda and also directed the recording the objections if any of the ward members. Thereafter, this Court, based on the report submitted, disposed of the said writ petition. The Municipal Council is a self-governing body, which conducts its affairs, in a democratic manner by the participation of the elected ward members. The members participating in the meeting are at liberty to voice their views for or against a particular resolution. If the Chair-person is not acting in a democratic manner, the only course open to the ward members is to move Motion of No Confidence. Since it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is not acting democratically, and having regard to the fact that the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 challenging the No Confidence Motion moved against her is pending, and considering the fact that the petitioner and other ward members have already filed applications for their impleadment therein, the only course open to the petitioner is to get himself impleaded in the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 against the No Confidence Motion as also the writ petition filed by one of the ward members questioning the convening of the meetings for passing resolutions, and get them disposed of, by bringing to the notice of the Court, the alleged illegal actions of respondent No.4 in recording the minutes of the meetings, but certainly, this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not supervise the meetings of the self-governing bodies, for, it is for the ward members and the officers concerned bestowed with the power of voting, to take care of and arrest the illegal actions, if any, of its members or Chair-person. There are no merits in this Writ Petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 26th February, 2009 bcj