P. Venkateswara Rao vs The Govt. of A.P. and Others

S. Parvatha Rao, J.—In this Writ Petition the petitioner questions G.O.Ms. No. 1620, MA., Municipal Administration and Urban Development (12) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 9-12-1993 and the notification appended thereto whereunder it is stated as follows:

"Sri P. Venkateswara Rao (petitioner herein), a member of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority has ceased to be the member of the said Authority with immediate effect under sub-clause (a) of clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Urban Development Authority Rules, 1977."

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notification is issued without any notice to the petitioner and without any opportunity given to the petitioner and therefore it is in violation of principles of natural justice and also the express requirement of giving notice under the said Rule 5.

On 17-12-1993 notice before admission was directed and the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration took notice for the 1st respondent and Mrs. Sumalini Reddy, the learned standing Counsel far the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, took notice for respondents 2 and 3 and requested time for obtaining instructions. Today the learned Government Pleader produced the record. He submits that the record does not disclose that any notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned G.O. He however submits that the record discloses that an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector of Visakhapatnam district and that he submitted a report to the 1st respondent based on which the impugned G.O. was issued. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Urban Development Authority Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") referred to in the impugned G.O. is as follows:

"(2) If any member of the Authority other than a person appointed as a member by virtue of his office, during the terms for which he has been appointed or nominated shall be disqualified for being a member of the Authority:-

(i) if he becomes subjected to any disqualification specified in Rule 6; or

(ii) if he votes or takes part as a member in the discussion of any matter-

(a) in which he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner, any share or interest, irrespective of the value of such share or interest; or

(b) where he is professionally interested; or

(c) where he is engaged at the time in any proceeding against the Authority."

I am of the view that the said sub-rule (2) has to be read along with sub-rule (3'' which is as follows:

"(3) The Government either suo motu or on a report made to them and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the member concerned to represent his case, shall, on being satisfied that a vacancy has arisen under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 declare the seat of the person concerned to be vacant."

It cannot be that opportunity should be given to the member concerned for declaring the seat of the person concerned to be vacant and that no opportunity need be given for finding the said person disqualified for being a member of the Authority. Reading sub-rules (2) and (3) together I am inclined to take the view that the rule does not provide for automatic disqualification and that before a member is declared to have been disqualified and consequently his seat is declared to have become vacant, the concerned member shall be given a reasonable opportunity. Even if the rules were silent in this regard, principles of natural justice would warrant an opportunity to the affected member before he is declared as disqualified.

In the circumstances, as I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before the impugned G.O. was issued, the writ petition will have to be allowed on the ground that the said G.O. is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents to initiate action afresh in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed subject to the above. No costs.