Municipalities Rules | 30-Day Limit To Convene No Confidence Motion Meeting Ensures That Collector Doesn't Procrastinate: AP High Court

For context, Rule 5 enacts that after proper verification of the signatures of the members in the prescribed Form, the District Collector shall convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the municipal council on a date appointed by him which "shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which notice was delivered to him". Additionally, he shall give to the members who are having right to vote, notice of not less than fifteen clear days as provided in sub-section (2) of section 46 of the AP Municipalities Act in Form-II.

Explaining the application of the Rule, a Justice Nyapathy Vijay in his order said:

“On a closer scrutiny of the purport of time limit mentioned in the above Rules, this Court is of the opinion that Rule 5 provides for rights for enforcement of “No Confidence Motion‟ on the signatories and casts an obligation on the District Collector to conduct the meeting within the time specified. The Rule 5 does not provide for any right to the Petitioner and it would be odd to say that Petitioner has a right of getting the “No Confidence Motion‟ enforced within 30 days. The time limit is to ensure that the District Collector does not procrastinate the statutory obligation to convene the meeting of “No Confidence Motion‟ and defeat the democratic right of the majority to express no confidence in the Chairperson/Vice Chairperson as the case may be. The time limit in Rule 5 is a sense of assurance to the signatories to the Form-I.”

Background

The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed against a notice issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Vizianagram (Respondent 2) on April 7 proposing to hold a meeting of the Council for consideration of motion of no confidence against the petitioner.

The petitioner was elected Chairperson of Bobbili Municipality in the Municipal Elections for Bobbili Municipality, 2021, whereafter, it came to his notice that 20 members of the Council had given written notice in Form-I as required under Section 46 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, to make a motion expressing want of confidence against him.

Consequently, the Collector issued the notice proposing to hold a meeting of the Council on April 29 at 11.00 a.m. for consideration of motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition.

It was the case of the petitioner that the impugned notice could not be the basis to initiate a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner as it did not contain the date and place of the signatures in the motion letter and as such, Form-I was not in consonance with the prescribed format. The petitioner reasoned that according to Section 46 of the Act, a written notice of 'No Confidence Motion' should be in the form specified by the Government and as the Form does not contain the date and day on which it was signed, the same was not a sufficient compliance of Rule 46 r/w Rule 3 of the Rules. It was further argued that the meeting of No Confidence should have been conducted within a period of 30 days from the date on which the notice was delivered to the District Collector and the District Collector should have given a 15 days notice to the members having right to vote as provided under Section 46(2) of the Act.

Contrary to this, the respondents argued that the impugned Form-I notice was issued within the timeframe of 30 days as specified in Rule 5 and that the purpose of No Confidence Motion in Form-I was primarily to cross-check the genuineness of the signatures of the members seeking No Confidence and therefore, the argument of non-mention of the date was irrelevant.

Court's Findings:

At the outset, the Court explained that a “No-Confidence Motion” is a majoritarian exercise that constitutes a proposal for removal resulting from a loss of confidence of the members of the council. Form-I under the AP Municipalities Act contains the prescribed format to give intimation to the District Collector expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson, who shall then check the veracity of the signatures of the signatories and thereafter issue a notice in Form II to convene the meeting within 15 days.

As already mentioned, the Court held that this time limit is to ensure that the District Collector does not procrastinate convening the meeting of No Confidence Motion and dent the democratic process of casting vote in the said motion.

Additionally, with respect to the argument that the absence of a date on Form I made the impugned notice unsustainable, the Court held,

“…since the members who signed on the Form-I are not disputing their signatures on the Form-I nor are they objecting that they had signed on the Form-I, 30 days prior to the proposed meeting on 29.04.2025. In the absence of any objection from the signatories to the Form-I to the proposed meeting, it would not be open to the Petitioner piggy back on objections available to the members.”

Thus, the Court held that the impugned notice was not defective and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 10811/2025

Case Title: SAVU VENKTA MURALI KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Date: 29.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order