THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 7003 of 2006, 2256 of 2007 & 18257 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These three writ petitions are connected with each other. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in W.P.No.2256 of 2007. Kandukur in Prakasam District was one of the largest Gram Panchayats from the point of view of population as well as area. In the year 1987, it was constituted as a Municipality in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) and the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. The Municipality comprised of 30 wards. Elections were being conducted to the Municipal Council from time to time. After the general elections to the State Assembly and Parliament were held in the year 2004, political configurations in the State changed. On coming to know that steps were being taken to delete substantial areas from the Municipality, the Municipal Council passed a unanimous resolution, dated 29.10.2004, opposing any proposal for deletion of wards or areas from the Municipality. The term of the elected Municipal Councils in the State expired on 28.03.2005. Special Officers were appointed and in the case of Kandukur Municipality (for short the ‘Municipality’), the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole was appointed as a Special Officer. Respondent No.7, the then R.D.O. took charge on 29.03.2005. Soon thereafter, he sent proposals to the Government for deletion of certain wards from the Municipality. He did not make any mention of the resolution, dated 29.10.2004. The State Election Commission issued notification, dated 29.08.2005, initiating steps for conducting elections to all the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations in the State. The elections to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the surrounding five Municipalities were deferred on the ground that reorganization thereof into a single unit is under consideration. As regards Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation also, similar proposals were mooted. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.1, in its Municipal Administration Department, addressed a letter, dated 18.08.2005, to the State Election Commission with a request to defer election process in those local bodies. Kandukur was also included in the list. The petitioners in W.P.No.7003 of 2006, earlier filed W.P.No.19789 of 2005 challenging the exclusion of their Municipality from the election schedule. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.10.2005, directing that the elections to that Municipal Council shall be conducted within five months. The M.L.A. from Kandukur Assembly Constituency, respondent No.6, forwarded a letter to respondent No.1, with a request to delete some wards and areas from the Municipality and to add few others, to it. That constituted the basis for further steps. The provisions of law, that existed at the relevant point of time did not permit such action. The State Legislature amended the Act by adding Section 3 (1A). This enabled deletion of areas from the existing Municipality or addition of areas thereto. In exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 326 of the Act, respondent No.1 framed the A.P. Municipalities (Inclusion or Exclusion of areas into/from the limits of Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats) Rules, 2006 (for short ‘the Rules’), through G.O.Ms.No.63, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Elec.II) Department, dated 18.02.2006. This was followed by issuance of a Memo, dated 08.03.2006, by respondent No.1 and a notification, dated 18.03.2006 by respondent No.7. W.P.No.7003 of 2006 is filed challenging the said proceedings. It is stated that the whole exercise is motivated and resorted to, only for the purpose of accommodating political interest. The vires of rules are also challenged. After the Act was amended and the Rules were framed, respondent No.1 has taken further steps and ultimately, issued G.O.Ms.No.22 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Elec.II) Department, dated 16.01.2007, directing deletion and inclusion of areas from the purview of the Municipality as below: (Deletion of the areas) 8th Ward- (a) Divivaripalem (b) Ganigunta and (c) Anandapuram 9thWard- (a)Chuttagunta, (b)Gallavaripalem, (c) Mukkodipalem and (d) Kandravaripalem. 10thWard- (a) Shammerpalem (b) Anandapuram(SC Colony) and (c) Anandapuram (ST Colony) (Inclusion of the areas) 6th Ward- Vasavinagar. 7th Ward-Revenue Colony. 7th Ward-Kalavakurivaripalem (part) W.P.Nos.2256 of 2007 and 18257 of 2008 are filed challenging the said G.O. The petitioners are residents of the areas that are deleted from the purview of the Municipality. They contend that soon after respondent No.6 was elected as M.L.A. from Kandukur, he made it a point to get excluded the areas referred to above from the Municipality, since he did not secure adequate number of votes from those places. They further contend that the influence exerted by respondent No.6 is so high, that the Act was amended and the Rules were framed just to comply with his demand. They also contend that respondent No.7 has acted in blatant violation of the provisions of law and the prescribed procedure, and has acted according to the directives of respondent No.6. They submit that the very factual basis for undertaking exercise of deletion is incorrect and the residents of the areas have, in one voice, opposed the proposal. Separate counter-affidavits are filed in the respective writ petitions. It is stated that when a proposal was received for restructuring the Municipality, proceedings were initiated in accordance with law and the matter was got verified through the District Collector and other concerned officials. According to them, the areas that are deleted, are separated by agricultural lands from Kandukur Town and it was becoming difficult and expensive to provide amenities to such areas. They plead that every step in the process was taken in accordance with law and after ascertaining the views of the concerned, and that no interference is warranted. Sri T.Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7003 of 2006 and 2256 of 2007 and Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.18257 of 2008 submit that an unprecedented exercise of deletion of areas from the existing Municipality was resorted to, at the instance of respondent No.6, who, in turn, wanted to wreak political vengeance. They contend that the very inclusion of Kandukur in the list of local bodies that were sought to be amalgamated with Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporations was motivated and the effort of respondent No.6 was only to avoid election to the Municipal Council along with other Municipalities in the State. The learned counsel further contend that the level of influence exerted in the matter can be measured from the fact that the Act was amended and fresh Rules were framed only for this purpose. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the statements made by the respondents about the distances between different places are at variance with what was stated in earlier proceedings. They also contend that respondent No.7 has resorted to gross impropriety and misconduct in forwarding a letter recommending deletion of areas soon after he was appointed as a Special Officer, though a specific resolution was passed by the Council few months earlier thereto, opposing such proposal. They further contend that G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 16.01.2007, is based on incorrect facts and misrepresentations; and it was issued in utter disregard of the prescribed procedure. The learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, on the other hand, submit that being a person concerned with the local issues, respondent No.6 made a representation for reorganization of the Municipality and necessary steps were taken, in accordance with law. They submit that the Municipality was included in the list of certain local bodies, for postponing the elections, since further steps for reorganization of the Municipality were contemplated. They submit that being the Special Officer of the Council, respondent No.7 represented the Council and that no exception can be taken to the proposal forwarded by him. The learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel further submit that the matter was thoroughly examined and when it was found that the extant provisions of the Act do not permit deletion of areas, the State Legislature amended the Act paving the way therefor and relevant Rules were framed. The challenge to G.O.Ms.No.63, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Elec.II) Department, dated 18.02.2006, is resisted by stating that respondent No.1 is vested with the power to frame the Rules and that no challenge can be made to such Rules as long as they are in conformity with the provisions of the Act. So far as G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 16.01.2007, is concerned, learned counsel submit that it was issued after thorough exercise and enquiry, and duly following the prescribed procedure. The Municipality was established in the year 1987 and ever since then, it was functioning as any other Municipality in the State. After the general elections were held in the year 2004, there was change in political Government. The Municipal Council sensed steps for deletion of certain areas from it. A resolution, dated 29.10.2004, was passed opposing any steps for deletion of areas from the Municipality. The term of the Municipality expired on 28.03.2005. Respondent No.7 was appointed as Special Officer for the Municipality. The trouble started thereafter. Respondent No.6 addressed a letter, dated 16.12.2004, to the Minister for Municipal Administration with a request to delete Chittugunta, Anandapuram, Shamerapalem, Gangiguda, Divivaripalem areas from the Municipality on the ground that they are far away from the Town and there is no possibility for their improvement. Normally, one would expect the public representatives to take steps for improvement of the undeveloped areas, whether rural or urban. It is just un- understandable as to how respondent No.6 felt that the deletion of areas would improve the situation. He made similar representations to the Chief Minister also. From then onwards, the matter did not stop. Acting on a copy forwarded by respondent No.6, respondent No.7 sent proposals to the Government for deletion of the wards mentioned above soon after he took charge. Obviously, in view of this development, respondent No.1 approached the State Election Commission not to conduct elections to the Municipality. That request was acceded to, and elections for the Municipality were not held, though rest of the Municipalities in the State, have gone to polls. W.P.No.19789 of 2005 filed by some of the petitioners herein was disposed of on 06.10.2005 directing that the elections be held within five months. What transpired thereafter is not in the knowledge of the petitioners except that (a) they came to know that the Government framed Rules in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 18.02.2006; (b) respondent No.1 issued a memo, dated 08.03.2006, requiring the Special Officer to place the matter relating to deletion or inclusion of areas before the Municipality and to invite objections; and (c) a notification, dated 18.03.2006, was issued by respondent No.7 inviting objections. These three proceedings are challenged in W.P.No.7003 of 2006. In response to the notification, dated 18.03.2006, issued by respondent No.7, the petitioners and vast number of other residents submitted objections/representations opposing the proposal. Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.22, dated 16.01.2007, notifying deletion and inclusion as proposed by it. It is not uncommon that the local authorities, such as Gram Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal Corporations are constituted and re-constituted from time to time for promoting administrative efficiency and for providing better facilities to the residents. The relevant statutes and subordinate legislations prescribe the procedure to be followed for this. It is but natural that the proposals are opposed by some and supported by others. The Government is vested with the ultimate power to decide the matter, and to take necessary steps. The scope of interference by this Court would be generally, where procedural lapses exist. It is necessary to observe here itself that the procedural safeguards provided under the relevant laws are not empty formalities and they are in fact devised to provide platform for expression of public views. The exercise is required to be undertaken objectively and the decision-making process must reveal that the views expressed by the affected parties have been examined properly and the steps as required under law were meticulously followed. Reverting to the facts of the case, the proposal for deletion of the areas did not emanate from the public at large nor there existed any representation from the residents of the locality. The residents of Kandukur Town did not feel any burden on account of certain places being part of the Municipality. Equally, the residents of far of places did not insist on the deletion of areas complaining that adequate facilities were not being provided. It all started with a letter addressed by respondent No.6 to the Chief Minister and the Minister for Municipal Administration. Sensing the mind of respondent No.6, the Municipal Council passed unanimous resolution during its term opposing any reorganization of the Municipality. Having regard to the complex nature of the matter, this Court wanted to go through the relevant file. The learned Government Pleader has made available, the entire file that reflects the exercise undertaken, up to the issuance of the impugned G.Os. The proposal mooted by respondent Nos.6 and 7, which, in turn, weighed with the political wing of the executive was for deletion of the areas from an existing Municipality and addition of a few. On a consideration of the proposal, the administrative executive expressed the view that such a course is impermissible according to law as it prevailed then. Further, the acceptance of the proposal was to result in cancellation of the notifications issued by the Panchayat Raj Department on earlier occasions and constitution of Gram Panchayats, afresh. The matter was referred to the Law Department after notes were exchanged between the Departments of Municipal Administration and Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. The Secretary, Legal Affairs made the following note on 29.09.2005: “ In this connection, it is pointed out that there is no specific provision in the A.P. Municipalities Act empowering the Government either to delete an area from a Municipality or add an area with a Municipality as already opined by this Department at pages 11-12 n.f. of the linked file. It may be better to amend the relevant provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act empowering the Government to make deletion or addition of an area from or to a Municipality to avoid legal complications, if any action in this case is challenged in a Court of Law.” Doubts were also expressed as to whether the Municipality in question would satisfy the requirements stipulated for a Municipality, in case the areas are deleted. At every stage, the time stipulated by this Court for conducting election was being mentioned. The record, in a way, reflects the clout, which respondent No.6 had in the administration. The Municipal Administration Department submitted the following note: “The Law Department when consulted in the matter, have opined that there is no specific provision in the A.P. Municipalities Act empowering the Government either to delete an area from a Municipality or include an area into a Municipality. In view of the above position and as the proposal for alteration of limits of Kandukur Municipality would take some time to finalise, it was decided and accordingly the election to Kandukur Municipality was not proposed along with other Municipalities in the State. In this connection, it is submitted that W.P.No.19789 of 2005 has been filed in the A.P. High Court for conducting election to Kandukur Municipality and counter affidavit stating the factual position has also been filed in the said W.P. The G.P. for High Court has informed that the W.P. has been disposed of with a direction to conduct election to Kandukur Municipality within five months. In the light of the above, unless an amendment empowering the Government to delete or include areas from/into the Municipality is issued to the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, final orders cannot be issued on the proposal in respect of Kandukur Municipality altering the limits of Kandukur Municipality by adding certain areas and deleting certain areas and election cannot be conducted to Kandukur Municipality within the time limit ordered by the A.P. High Court. In the above circumstances, there is an urgent need to amend the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. As the current session of Assembly is going to end by 08.10.2005, it is not possible to introduce the bill in the current session. Therefore, the amendment as advised by Law Department can only be taken up by issuing an Ordinance. In view of the above, it is for consideration and orders whether an amendment to A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 empowering the Government to delete the areas from a Municipality or include the areas into the Municipality may be issued by way of an Ordinance. After orders are passed, the file may be circulated to Hon’ble C.M. through C.S./M(MA) for orders on para (78) above”. An Ordinance was issued and Section 3 (1A) of the Act was incorporated paving the way for deletion. It becomes evident that the Government was bent upon not holding the elections to the Municipality without satisfying the demand of respondent No.6, despite the fact that the time stipulated by this Court for holding elections has run out. The exercise that came to be undertaken after the amendment of the Act is in no way different. On the other hand, the level to which the bureaucracy has succumbed to pressure is evident from the text of the Rules that came to be framed just for the sake of acceding to the request/demand of respondent No.6. This Court is yet to come across the text of the Rules, which are framed with such amount of imperfection and callousness. Rule 3 of the Rules, which spells out the purpose, reads as under: Rule:3 Criteria for Inclusion or Exclusion of Areas: Wherein an issue raised for inclusion or exclusion of area(s) in/from the Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats at any of the level by official/non official representation, such cases shall be examined subject to satisfaction of following decisive factors. (i) For inclusion of Areas: (a) The areas, which are proposed to be included into the limits of Municipality/Nagar Panchayat, shall be within a radius of 3 k.m. of a Municipality/Nagar Pancyhayat. (b) The proposed area shall represent ample number of population to its area(s). (c) The proposed area shall represent economic importance of any specific reason viz., tourist place, historical place etc. (d) Proper justification shall be made for inclusion of an area(s). (e) In no case where an area is away from a distance of 3 k.ms. from the Municipality/Nagar Panchayat and no representation of ample population is made then such proposal shall not be taken into consideration for inclusion. (ii) For exclusion of areas: (a) The areas, which are proposed for exclusion from the Municipality/Nagar Panchyat, is far away from the vicinity of the town i.e. above 3 k.ms. radius. (b) The area proposed for exclusion does not represent ample number of population to its area(s). (c) The area proposed for exclusion does not have any economic importance or special features, which hinders the financial interest of the Municipality/Nagar Panchayat. (d) After exclusion of the proposed areas, the Municipality/Nagar Panchayat shall satisfy the criteria fixed for constitution of Municipality/Nagar Panchayat under the A.P. Transitional Area and Smaller Urban Area (Fixation of criteria) Rules, 1993. (e) Any other specific reasons which are against the interest of the Municipality/Nagar Panchayat. If one examines the expressions, such as ‘wherein an issue is raised’, ‘ample number of population’, ‘economic importance of any specific reason’, ‘ in no case where an area is away from a distance of 3 k.ms from the Municipality’, it would not be difficult to assess the capability of the author of the Rules to frame them. The other provisions in the Rules are not substantially different. See for instance, Rule 5 (viii) of the Rules for inclusion or exclusion of any area (s) into or from the Municipality/ Nagar Panvhayat, there will be omission or inclusion of certain area(s) of a specific word(s) of such Municipality/Nagar Panchayat. Subsequently, for such changes, re-division of Municipality/Nagar Panchayat into equal wards shall be taken up on compulsory basis before conduct of ordinary elections to such Municipality/Nagar Panchayat. A reading of this would make anyone, who is conversant with the provisions of law, think about the level to which the efficiency in drafting the provisions of law, has fallen. A novice in the Department, would have done a better job or at least would have taken guidance of the persons acquainted with the legislative language. A Senior Officer of the Administration, occupying the position of the Secretary at the relevant point of time, did not even stop for a while and examine whether an important piece of supporting legislation accords with basic principles of English Grammar, let alone, tenets of legal drafting. If one ignores the unfortunate manner in which the Rules were framed and drafted, the purport thereof appears to be that whenever a proposal emanates for inclusion or exclusion of the areas; (a) it must be placed together with the relevant particulars before the concerned Municipal Council; (b) the Municipal Council shall consider the proposal after inviting public opinion and thereafter pass a resolution, duly justifying it; (c) the resolution of the Council shall be forwarded by the Commissioner of the Municipality along with his specific observations to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, through the District Collector; (d) the Collector shall examine the proposal in consultation with the Gram Panchayat, if any and the District Panchayat Officer and thereafter, shall forward the proposal to the Government in Municipal Administration Department through the Commissioner; (e) the Government in Municipal Administration shall forward the proposal to the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department; (f) the Panchayat and Rural Development Department shall issue show cause notice to the Municipal Council/Special Officer, as the case may be, duly indicating its views, objections or suggestions and ; (g) the Municipal Council/Special Officer shall invite the objections from the local people and thereafter, submit its views to the Government and on a consideration of the same; and (h) in case the resolution of the Municipal Council is contrary to the proposal, the Government is placed under obligation to examine the same and to set aside the resolution, if it intends to proceed with the proposal. From this, it becomes clear that a proposal must be considered by the Municipal Council at two stages. The first is when a representation is made by an official or non-official for inclusion or exclusion. The second is when the Government in Municipal Administration forwards the matter, to the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, and the latter, in turn, issues a show cause notice to the Municipal Council. In the instant case, after the Rules were framed through G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 18.02.2006, respondent No.1 addressed a Memo, dated 08.03.2006, to the Municipal Council represented by the Special Officer. The proposal has emanated from the Government itself, by making a reference to certain proceedings of the District Collector. Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the Memo read as under: “Notice is hereby given to Kandukur Municipal Council to submit their views/objections/suggestions on the proposal of the Government (i) to delete the areas referred in para 6 above from the limits of Kandukur Municipality; and (ii) to include the areas referred in para 7 above into the limits of Kandukur Municipality. The Municipal Council shall communicate its views/objections/suggestions, if any within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this notice and if no views/objections/suggestions are received from the said Municipal Council within the above stipulated time, it will be construed that the Municipal Council have nothing to offer in this matter and further action will be taken by the Government basing on the record available with them. The Municipal Commissioner, Kandukur Municipality shall publish, give wide publicity and publish a copy of the notice on the Notice Board of the Municipality and other important public places for ascertaining the views of the public and to place it before the Municipal Council and furnish report to the Government along with the Council resolution duly following the stipulated rules as regards to fulfillment of Criteria etc., stipulated in