Independent Applicability of Section 679‑B and Section 23‑D under the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955

Introduction

The case of K. Suresh Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh arose from two competing statutory provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (“the Act”). The petitioner, Mr. K. Suresh Babu, was elected Mayor of Kadapa Municipal Corporation on 18 March 2024 after serving as a councillor since 2021. He challenged a Show Cause Notice issued by the State Government under Section 679‑B of the Act on 24 March 2025, seeking his disqualification and removal on allegations of conflict of interest and irregular awarding of municipal contracts to a firm in which his relatives were partners. The central issues before the Andhra Pradesh High Court were:

Whether the State Government has jurisdiction under Section 679‑B to issue a removal notice against an elected Mayor, when a separate disqualification procedure is prescribed under Section 23‑D;
Whether the Show Cause Notice suffered from malice or was procedurally flawed;
What relief, if any, should be granted to the petitioner pending adjudication of the allegations.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Nyapathy Vijay, in writ petition No. 9197/2025, upheld the statutory power of the State Government to issue a Show Cause Notice under Section 679‑B independently of the Commissioner’s disqualification proceedings under Section 23‑D. The court declined to quash the notice for lack of jurisdiction or on grounds of malice at this interlocutory stage. However, it directed the State Government to:

Disclose all documents relied upon in the Show Cause Notice; and
Grant the petitioner an extended period of three weeks from receipt of the order’s web copy to file his detailed reply.

No costs were awarded, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The petitioner relied primarily on the Division Bench decision in Chava Rosaiah v. Chintala Venkateswarlu and another, 2004 (1) ALD 54 (DB), which interpreted procedural safeguards under the Act’s disqualification provisions. In that case, the court emphasized that once the Municipal Commissioner notifies a councillor of disqualification under Section 23(1)(a), a reference to the District Court under Section 23‑D is mandatory before any removal can occur.

The State Government, by contrast, invoked its residuary power under Section 679‑B (inserted to address serious misconduct) to remove members/listed officers without following the Commissioner‑Court route. The High Court distinguished the two streams of authority and held that they operate in parallel, not hierarchically.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Statutory Scope: Section 23(1) lists disqualification grounds for elected members; Section 23‑D provides for judicial determination of those disqualifications after the Commissioner’s challenge. Section 679‑B authorizes the State Government to “remove” or “de‑seat” a member for similar or broader misconduct, effectively as an executive check.
Independent Spheres: The court held that Section 23‑D and Section 679‑B occupy separate legislative spheres: the former is a quasi‑judicial remedy triggered by the Commissioner’s disqualification notice, the latter is an executive removal power conferred on the State Government. Exercising Section 679‑B does not extinguish or supplant Section 23‑D.
Jurisdiction and Malice: Since the statute expressly grants the Government power under Section 679‑B, the notice issued could not be struck down for want of jurisdiction. Issues of malice or political motivation were deemed premature at the interlocutory stage; the petitioner’s remedy lay in responding to the notice and later challenging any final order on merits.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies and cements the following principles for municipal law in Andhra Pradesh:

The State Government’s power under Section 679‑B is exercisable independent of the Municipal Commissioner’s disqualification process.
Once a Show Cause Notice under Section 679‑B is validly issued, procedural challenges based on Section 23‑D compliance will generally fail.
Elected municipal officers facing removal under Section 679‑B must exhaust their statutory right to reply and only then mount a challenge to any final order.

Future cases will likely reference this ruling when parties contest the interplay between multiple removal/disqualification mechanisms under municipal legislation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Show Cause Notice: A formal document requiring a public official to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against them.
Section 23‑D Proceedings: A process where the Municipal Commissioner, upon suspecting a councillor’s disqualification, must refer the matter to the District Court for judicial determination.
Section 679‑B Power: The residuary power given to the State Government to remove a municipal officer for misconduct, corruption or conflict of interest.
Malice in Law: An intention to harm a person by wrongful or unfair means, which, if established, can invalidate administrative action.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision in K. Suresh Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh establishes a pivotal new precedent: Section 679‑B and Section 23‑D of the Municipal Corporation Act function independently. Executive removal power cannot be negated by the existence of a parallel quasi‑judicial disqualification mechanism. Municipal officers must now defend removal notices on merits rather than on procedural grounds of jurisdiction. This ruling thus balances executive authority with procedural fairness, reinforcing the rule of law in municipal governance.