Court dismisses writ petition challenging election notification due to disqualification of former Mayor
In a significant legal decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the notification for the election of the Mayor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, K. Suresh Babu, a former Mayor, had contested the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission to fill the casual vacancy created following his disqualification.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, held that the provisions governing direct elections under Section 7 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, do not apply to indirect elections for Mayor under Section 90. The court clarified that the procedure for general elections of members cannot be read into the election process for the Mayor, emphasizing the distinction between the two types of elections.
K. Suresh Babu, who was elected Mayor in March 2021 for a five-year term, faced disqualification due to alleged irregularities in civil contract works conducted by a firm owned by his family. This disqualification was challenged in a separate writ petition, which is currently pending before the High Court.
The petitioner argued that holding an election for a Mayor with only three months remaining in the tenure of the municipal members served no useful purpose. He contended that the notification was in violation of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and Article 243 of the Constitution of India. However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that the statutory bar on conducting elections within six months of the end of members' tenure does not extend to indirect elections for the Mayor.
The State Election Commission defended the notification, asserting that the election for Mayor is an indirect election involving existing members, unlike the direct elections for members governed by Section 7. The Commission argued that the procedures and restrictions applicable to direct elections do not apply to the election of the Mayor.
The court agreed with this distinction, stating that the process for electing a Mayor is fundamentally different from that of electing members. It further noted that if the petitioner succeeds in his pending writ petition challenging the disqualification, he would automatically assume office as Mayor, rendering the subsequent election moot.
In dismissing the writ petition, the court highlighted the absence of any interim protection granted to the petitioner in his challenge against the disqualification. The judgment ensures that the election for the Mayor's post proceeds as per the notification, reinforcing the legal framework governing municipal elections.
Bottom Line:
Election of Mayor in the event of casual vacancy must be analyzed distinctly from general elections of members; provisions of direct elections under Section 7 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 do not apply to indirect elections of Mayor under Section 90 of the same Act.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 7 and 90 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955; Article 243U of the Constitution of India.
K.Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2825445
