IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1449 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/12/2007 in WP NO : 22723 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Patibandla Ramakrishna S/o. Prabhakar Tenali, Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Tenali Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Tenali, Guntur District. 3 Municipal Council, Tenali Municipality, rep. by its Chairman, Tenali, Guntur District. 4 Municipal Commissioner, Tenali Municipality, Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.A. No.1449 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUST ICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both the sides. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11-12- 2007 made in WPMP. No.29562 of 2007 in W.P. No.22723 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge of this Court rejected to grant the interim suspension of the impugned order, in the writ petition. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the aspect of balance of convenience, the writ petition was directed to be listed on 21-01-2008 for hearing. The basic facts in brief are that the writ petitioner is a Councilor of Municipal Council of Tenali Municipality. Inasmuch as, he abstained from attending three consecutive meetings, disqualiﬁcation was attached to him and to that eﬀect a notice had been served upon him. Challenging the said notice, the present writ petition came to be filed. It appears that the prime contention of the petitioner is that his abstinence to the three consecutive meetings, was not intentional and on the contrary the circumstances were totally beyond his control, since he was involved in a case punishable under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, his case is that, his absence shall not be construed as voluntary abstinence and in such a case, attachment of disqualiﬁcation is not warranted nor permitted under law. This is a vital question that has to be gone into, as pointed out by the learned single Judge. We agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge while rejecting the interim order as prayed for by the petitioner. However, having regard to the aspect that the petitioner being elected peoples representative at municipality level, it is not desirable for keeping the council membership to be vacant, which was hitherto occupied by the petitioner. There appears to be some convincing reason in it. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances, we feel it expedient to direct the Registry to list the W.P. No.22723 of 2007 for ﬁnal hearing on 25-11-2008 subject to part heard. With the above direction, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Except this modiﬁcation, the order of the learned single Judge shall remain unaltered for all other purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ----------------------------------- JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 18T H NOVEMBER, 2008 AVS/LSK