### Headnotes — *Sri Thubati Purnachandra Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.*
**W.P. Nos.19692 of 2020 & 7523 of 2026 — Harinath N., J. — 25.08.2026**
**2026:APHC:34853**
1. **Merger/De-merger of Gram Panchayat — Government power subject to statutory procedure:**
The Government has power to merge or de-merge a village or area into or from a Municipality, but such power is **subject to the procedure established by law and compliance with the relevant Rules governing Grama Sabha meetings**. **[Para 24]**
2. **Grama Sabha — Mandatory two clear days' notice:**
Rule 4 of the Rules relating to holding of Grama Sabha meetings requires notice of the place, date and time of the meeting to be given **at least two clear days before the meeting**. The prescribed modes include beat of drum in the village, affixture at three conspicuous places and affixture on the Gram Panchayat notice board. **[Para 9]**
3. **Grama Sabha — Attendance register mandatory:**
Rule 9 requires maintenance of an attendance register containing the signature or thumb impression of every member present. Where the holding of the Grama Sabha itself is disputed, production merely of a resolution signed by the Special Officer and Panchayat Secretary, without notices and attendance records, is insufficient to establish a valid meeting. **[Para 9]**
4. **Defective Dandora — Grama Sabha proceedings invalid:**
A Dandora issued on **11.01.2020** calling the Grama Sabha for **12.01.2020** did not satisfy the mandatory two-clear-days requirement under Rule 4 and therefore could not be treated as a valid Dandora. **[Para 22]**
5. **Resolution — Interpolation/overwriting — Genuineness doubtful:**
The Court found that copies of the resolutions allegedly passed by the Grama Sabhas of Pasumarru and Manukonduvaripalem contained apparent interpolations when compared with the colour photocopies placed before the Court. **[Para 22]**
6. **Vernacular resolution versus translation — Material discrepancy:**
Where the Telugu/vernacular version of a resolution merely indicated that a Grama Sabha was conducted, while its translation conveyed that a decision had been taken to merge the Gram Panchayat into the Municipality, the discrepancy undermined reliance upon the translated resolution. **[Para 23]**
7. **Government action based on invalid Grama Sabha — Cannot be sustained:**
The Government could not act upon resolutions which were initiated at the behest of the then MLA without the Grama Sabha actually being conducted in accordance with the governing Rules. **[Para 23]**
8. **Interim order — Suspension continued:**
The order dated **22.10.2020** suspended G.O.Ms.Nos.260 and 83. The subsequent order dated **09.03.2021**, which permitted the election process to proceed subject to the outcome of the writ petition, **did not vacate or unsettle that suspension**. **[Paras 20–21]**
9. **Gram Panchayat — Continued existence during suspension:**
Since the merger Government Orders continued to remain suspended, the concerned Gram Panchayats continued to exist. The Court also noted that Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat collected taxes during 2023 and 2024. **[Para 21]**
10. **Election — Subject to writ outcome:**
The election of representatives from the erstwhile Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat wards was expressly subject to the outcome of W.P.No.19692 of 2020. However, the Court declined to retrospectively undo the completed tenure of those elected representatives. **[Para 25]**
11. **Completed electoral tenure — Does not validate illegal merger:**
The completion of the elected members' tenure could not be treated as a precedent for upholding G.O.Ms.Nos.260 and 83. The Court expressly held that, notwithstanding the completed tenure, it could set aside the Government Orders because they had been passed in violation of the relevant Rules and laws. **[Para 25]**
12. **Merger/de-merger — Fundamental right:**
The Government's consideration of merger or de-merger of an area into/from a Municipality cannot be challenged as a fundamental right **where the prescribed Rules and regulations are followed and public interest is kept in view**. Individual rights cannot override the broader public interest in the area. **[Para 24]**
13. **De-merger — Subsequent procedure upheld:**
Once G.O.Ms.Nos.83 and 260 were set aside, the procedure adopted by the respondents for de-notification and de-merger of the three Gram Panchayats could not be faulted. The resolutions subsequently passed by the Grama Sabhas and Municipal Council were not interfered with. **[Para 27]**
### **Core Ratio**
> **The power of the Government to merge or de-merge a village into or from a Municipality is not absolute. It must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and the Rules governing Grama Sabha meetings. Where the foundational Grama Sabha proceedings are vitiated by violation of mandatory notice requirements, absence of attendance records, interpolation in resolutions, or material discrepancies between vernacular resolutions and translations, the Government cannot lawfully act upon such resolutions.** **[Paras 22–24]**
### **Final Order**
* **W.P.No.19692 of 2020 — Allowed.**
* **G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 28.01.2020 — Set aside.**
* **G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 28.01.2020 — Set aside.**
* **W.P.No.7523 of 2026 — Dismissed.**
* The Court held that the subsequent procedure for de-notification/de-merger of the three Gram Panchayats could not be faulted.
* **No order as to costs.**
* Pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. **[Paras 26–28]**
No comments:
Post a Comment