SIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 1153 of 2009 Between: Shaik Jani Basha S/o Khayyum ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The District Collector Guntur District 3 The Municipal Commissioner Ponnur Municipal Council, Ponnur Town Guntur District 4 The Chairperson Ponnuru Municipal Council Dr Nallamothu Ruthrani (Member 23rd Ward) W/o.Dr Ravindranath Tagore C/o Ravi Nursing Home GBC Road Ponnur Town, Guntur District ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ order or directions more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the impugned action of the 4th respondent in issuing Notice and Agenda dt 16-01-2009 as illegal and arbitrary and interdict the 4th respondent from conducting an Special Meeting on 24.1.2009 to ratify the agenda for revised budget estimates for the Financial Year 2008-09 and 2009-10 . The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support there of and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pinammaneni Ramana Krishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and of G.P.for Municipal Administration for the Respondents 1 & 2 and of Sri S. Nageswara Reddy Standing Counsel for MCG for the Respondent No.3. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER “The petitioner states that earlier he filed writ petition in W.P.No.25487 of 2008 questioning the action of respondent No.4 namely the Chairperson, Ponnur Municipal Council in issuing Notice and Agenda dated 18.11.2008 and also ratifying some of the resolutions passed by the Council , as illegal and arbitrary. That this Court by order dated 19.11.2008 granted interim directions to the respondents directing them not to give effect to the resolutions passed in that meeting . Later on by order dated 29.12.2008, the said order was modified giving liberty to the respondent authorities to proceed with the contractual works relating to sanitation and street lights. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that while the said writ petition is pending, the respondent No.4 has again issued another Notice and Agenda dated 16.1.2009 impugned in the writ petition, calling for a Special Meeting on 24.1.2009 to ratify the agenda for the revised budget estimates. According to the petitioner , respondent No.4 has called for the represent meeting only to cover up the mistakes committed by him earlier. ..2 ..2… The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that majority of the Ward Members have passed a no-confidence motion against respondent No.4 and as such, respondent No.4 should not be permitted to conduct the meeting. He further submitted that respondent No.4 is not allowing the Ward Members to participate in the meetings and thereby disabling them from expressing their viewpoints and is completing the meetings within few minutes. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is already a delay in holding the meeting to discuss the budget estimates, and this Court should not stall the meeting. Ponnur Municipal Council is a self-government and it being a democratic institution , all policy decisions relating to the governing of the municipality have to be taken based on the consenting votes of the elected public representatives. All the Ward Members are entitled to participate in the meetings and register the stand point of views or protest. This Court cannot monitor the day to day functioning of the council or supervise the meetings. Since it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is not allowing the Ward Members to participate in the meetings and taking decisions on his own, instead of stalling the meeting, I deem it appropriate to pass the following interim order. Respondent No.3 namely the Municipal Commissioner, Ponnur Municipal Council is directed to take appropriate steps for the participation of all the Ward Members in the present meeting and facilitate free expression of their views and also ensure that respondent No.4 does not scuttle the Ward Members from expressing their point of views, especially with reference to the agenda. He shall record the objections, if any, expressed by the participating Ward Members,and submit the Minutes of the Meeting by way of a report to this Court on the next date of hearing. Post after two weeks along with W.P., No.25487 of 2008.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1. The Principal Secretary, State of A.P Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat Hyderabad 2. The District Collector Guntur District. 3. The Municipal Commissioner Ponnur Municipal Council, Ponnur Town Guntur District 4 The Chairperson Ponnuru Municipal Council Dr Nallamothu Ruthrani (Member 23rd Ward) W/o.Dr Ravindranath Tagore C/o Ravi Nursing Home GBC Road Ponnur Town, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri Pinammaneni Ramana Krishna, Advocate, (OPUC) 6. Two CCs to the G.P for Municipal Administration, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 7. One spare copy. RV HIGH COURT NVRJ Dated 23.1.2009 Note: Post after two weeks along with W.P., No.25487 of 2008. ORDER WP.No.1153 of 2009 Direction HIGH COURT RV Dated 29.1.2009 NVRJ Dated 23.1.2009 Note: Post after two weeks along with W.P., No.25487 of 2008. ORDER WP.No.1153 of 2009 Direction