IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12891 of 2009 Between: B. Raja Lingam S/o. Mallaiah R/o. H.No. B1/10, NTPC, PTS Jyothinagar, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Rep. by its Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Karimnagar. 3 The RamagundamMunicipality Rep. bysd its Commissioner, Ramagundam, Karimnagar 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus questioning the proceedings/orders issued by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No.414 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (ELEC.I) Department dt. 27-6- 2009 appointing the district Collector, Karimnagar, as special Officer, to Ramagundam Municipality from the date of expiry of the term of the Municipal Council i.e, 1-7-2009 for a period of Six months as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 and Consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be the Chairperson of the Ramagundam Municipality, filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that G.O.Ms. No.414 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (ELEC. I) Department dated 27-6-2009, appointing the District Collector, Karimnagar as Special Officer, Ramagundam Municipality from the date of expiry of the term of Municipal Council i.e. 01-07-2009, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The fact that the term of the Municipal Council expires on 01-07-2009 is not in dispute. In such an eventuality, if the Government is of the opinion that it is not possible to hold the elections to the Municipality in question before the date of expiration of the term, the Government is competent to appoint a Special Officer to exercise the powers, perform the duties and discharge the functions of the Council. Since the term of the elected Municipal Council of Ramagundam Municipality has admittedly expired on 01-07-2009 and no fresh election has been held, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the impugned notification appointing a Special Officer, suffers from any legal error. Though, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per Section 7 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) the term of office of the elected Council shall be co-terminus with the elected members of the Municipalities in the State elected in the last preceding ordinary elections and thus the Municipal Council of Ramagundam shall be continued upto September 2010, it is to be noticed that sub-Section (5) of Section 7 has been omitted by amendment Act of 2005. Hence, the above contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. No other provision could be pointed out by the petitioner to show that respondent No.1, in issuing the impugned notification, has acted contrary to the statutory provisions. However, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that various developmental activities are pending for approval of the Municipal Council and at this stage, if the Special Officer is appointed, the said works cannot be taken up and the same would cause a lot of hardship to the public and there would be total breakdown of the growth of developmental activities in all spheres. Having regard to Section 62-A of the Act, empowering the Special Officer to exercise the powers and perform the duties and discharge all the functions of the elected Council, I do not find any substance in the said contention of the petitioner and the impugned notification can not be held to be illegal on that ground. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J July 01, 2009. KTL