HC Directs Explanation on not Filling up of Armoor MC Chairman Post (Photo: DC File)
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has sought an explanation from the principal secretary, municipal administration, and the Nizamabad district collector over the allegations of the department’s interference that caused a delay in the filing up the chairman’s post of the Armoor Municipal Council.
Municipal councilors Kahndesh Sangitha, Ettedi Narsa Reddy and another approached the High Court stating that the collector had not taken steps to fill the post, even though it was notified as vacant after incumbent chairperson Pandith Vinitha was defeated in a no-confidence motion after 24 out of 36 concillors supported it on January 4.
Senior counsel V. Ravikiran Rao, appearing for the petitioners, submitted to the court that the principal secretary had issued a memo interpreting that the no-confidence motion was contrary to the High Court orders.
Explaining the case to the court , senior counsel furnished the memo issued in the name of principal secretary in which the official made it clear to the district authorities that 25 votes were needed to dethrone the chairperson in the no-confidence motion as that was the figure amounting to two-third of the council with 36 councillors and an ex-officio member.
Counsel argued that the High Court on January 10 had issued interim orders rejecting the continuance of the outgoing chairperson. Despite this order, the principal secretary had issued the memo, senior counsel Ravikiran Rao submitted.
The court, while seeking an explanation from the authorities, adjourned the hearing to February 19.
Senior counsel V. Ravikiran Rao, appearing for the petitioners, submitted to the court that the principal secretary had issued a memo interpreting that the no-confidence motion was contrary to the High Court orders.
Explaining the case to the court , senior counsel furnished the memo issued in the name of principal secretary in which the official made it clear to the district authorities that 25 votes were needed to dethrone the chairperson in the no-confidence motion as that was the figure amounting to two-third of the council with 36 councillors and an ex-officio member.
Counsel argued that the High Court on January 10 had issued interim orders rejecting the continuance of the outgoing chairperson. Despite this order, the principal secretary had issued the memo, senior counsel Ravikiran Rao submitted.
The court, while seeking an explanation from the authorities, adjourned the hearing to February 19.
( Source : Deccan Chronicle )
Next Story
