V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Corporator of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH ). He was elected in the elections held for the Corporation in January 2001 from chenchalguda ward. He is before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent being G. O. Ms. No. 385, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Elec. II) Department, dated 7-8-2003 purporting to be under Section 679aa of the hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 ( the Act ). By the impugned order, the petitioner has been suspended by the Government. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is as follows. He is a Corporator of Chenchalguda ward. After the onset of monsoon, due to failure on the part of the Municipal corporation, an epidemic of viral disease broke out. In this ward, no steps were taken to avert and abort the spread of epidemic. On 13-7-2003, Master sohail, a boy fell sick due to viral fever and ultimately he died in Princess durru Shehvar Children Hospital on 13-7-2003. This caused consternation in the people of the locality and they were highly agitated against the Municipal corporation for not maintaining sanitary conditions and cleanliness. ( 3 ) THE petitioner statedly addressed a letter to the Hon ble Chief Minister of the state highlighting the death of the child and about the unhygienic conditions prevailing in the locality known as Bagh e Jahan Ara within the territorial jurisdiction of Chenchalguda ward. He also requested the Municipal Corporation and Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board to take appropriate action in the matter. On 15-7-2003, the Commissioner of MCH visited Dabeerpura and Bagh e jahan Ara areas. According to the petitioner, when the Commissioner and other officials visited the area, the people were agitating and there was heated exchange between the officials and the people who gathered there. He visited the place immediately and tried to pacify the situation. Sensing that the situation is going out of control, he allegedly escorted the Commissioner to the car requesting her to leave the place. When the officials started leaving, the people who gathered there started pelting stones on the vehicles and it is only he controlled the situation. He visited the place immediately and tried to pacify the situation. Sensing that the situation is going out of control, he allegedly escorted the Commissioner to the car requesting her to leave the place. When the officials started leaving, the people who gathered there started pelting stones on the vehicles and it is only he controlled the situation. ( 4 ) IT appears, the officials and other senior officers who accompanied the commissioner on 15-7-2003 submitted a report to the Commissioner to take appropriate action against the petitioner under section 679aa of the Act for his involvement of pelting stones and causing damage to the car. The Commissioner sent up a report vide letter dated 16-7-2003 requesting the Government to consider strict action against the petitioner. The Government issued a show cause notice on 18-7-2003 by way of memo calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be suspended under Section 679aa of the Act for allegedly endangering the lives of government personnel, damaging the government property, obstructing the officers from performing official duties by threatening and using physical force. The petitioner obtained a report submitted by the Additional Commissioners of MCH and official of HMWSSB as well as the report of the Commissioner and submitted explanation denying the allegations made in the memo. He further stated that the Commissioner visited bagh e Jahan Ara after the death of the child Sohail, but the same was suppressed in the report, and that he never involved in endangering the lives of the government personnel and damaging government property. He also objected to the report submitted by the Commissioner on the ground that true facts were suppressed and that the other fact was magnified. Be that as it is, the government passed the impugned order holding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 29-7-2003 "does not reveal any clinching evidence of his innocence against the host of witness statements filed by officials of the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. " While rejecting the explanation, the government ordered suspension of the petitioner for his alleged misbehaviour with the staff and officers of the Corporation and for endangering the lives of the government personnel; damaging government property; obstructing officials from performing official duties; and using physical force. " While rejecting the explanation, the government ordered suspension of the petitioner for his alleged misbehaviour with the staff and officers of the Corporation and for endangering the lives of the government personnel; damaging government property; obstructing officials from performing official duties; and using physical force. ( 5 ) THE Assistant Secretary to Government in the Municipal Administration Department has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Government, which in effect contains the same contents as in the show cause and the impugned order. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the same in detail. However, it is necessary to refer to paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit which reads as under. . . . . . . . it is respectfully submitted that the entire contention raised by the petitioner is false. He being a responsible representative of the people ought to have submitted the real facts to this Hon ble High Court instead of misrepresenting the facts. Where a serious incident taken place in which two drivers/employees of the Corporation were seriously injured, which incident has taken place at the instance of the Corporator in the presence of the higher officials of the Corporation, the Government has exercised the powers of H. M. C. Act and initiated proceedings for suspension of the Corporator in view of the misbehaviour of the Corporator. The Government after considering the evidence, reports and also explanation submitted by the petitioner has come a conclusion that the petitioner has willfully, cautiously misbehaved, manhandled, destroyed the property of the Corporation and abused his position along with his supporters on 15-7-2003. Therefore, the Government has no other option except to exercise the powers under Section 679aa of the H. M. C. Act in the interest of the Corporation and in the smooth functioning of the municipal administration and also in the interest of the public at large. ( 6 ) SRI G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions. He would submit that the ingredients required for suspending the Corporator as per Section 679aa of the Act are not present in the case, and, therefore, exercise of power suffers from legal malice. Secondly, he would submit that the impugned order is bad in law for non-consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner and also for non-disclosure of reasons for exercise of power under Section 679aa of the Act. Learned Govt. Secondly, he would submit that the impugned order is bad in law for non-consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner and also for non-disclosure of reasons for exercise of power under Section 679aa of the Act. Learned Govt. Pleader for Municipal Administration, Sri Y. Rama Rao, refutes the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner prevented the Commissioner and other officials from discharging their duties while they were on inspection in accordance with Section 637 of the Act. The petitioner was responsible to the damage caused to three cars and also injuries caused to the driver. Due to the untoward misbehaviour of the petitioner, the Commissioner and other officers were prevented from discharging their official duties and they were forced to flee the area and thereby the provisions of Section 679aa of the Act are attracted. ( 7 ) THE two questions that require consideration are whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, exercise of power under Section 679aa of the Act is valid? Secondly, whether reasons disclosed in the impugned order are sufficient compliance with well known principles of administrative law? section 679aa of the Act was not originally on the statute book. It was inserted by A. P. Act No. 13 of 1999 with effect from 24-3-1999. A similar provision being Section 59a was also inserted in the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 by A. P. Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act No. 13 of 1999 ). Indeed, Section 679aa of the Act and Section 59a of the Municipalities Act as amended by Act No. 13 of 1999 are ipsissima verba. Section 679 AA of the Act reads as under. Indeed, Section 679aa of the Act and Section 59a of the Municipalities Act as amended by Act No. 13 of 1999 are ipsissima verba. Section 679 AA of the Act reads as under. 679-AA (1) The Government may, either suo motu or on a representation of a Mayor or Deputy Mayor or Member or Commissioner or employee of Municipal Corporation, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, suspend the Mayor or the Deputy mayor or a Member, who in their opinion willfully misbehaved or manhandled any other Member or Officer or employee of the Corporation or destroyed the property of the Corporation or used unparliamentary language or abused his position in the course of meetings of the Corporation or during the discharge of any duty vesting upon the Mayor or Deputy Mayor or any Member or Officer or employee, so as to lead a situation in which the Municipal Administration cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the financial stability of the Council is threatened. (2) The Government shall, before taking action under sub-section (1) give the mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Member concerned an opportunity for explanation, and the notification issued under the said sub-section (1) shall contain a statement of the reasons for the action taken by the Government. (3) The Government may, suo motu, or on an application made by the Mayor or the deputy Mayor or the Member revoke the order of suspension issued under sub-section (1 ). (4) The amendments made to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 by section 3, shall extend to and shall apply also to the Visakhapatnam and vijayawada Municipal Corporations and also to other Corporations constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994. ( 8 ) IF we paraphrase sub-section (1) of Section 679aa of the Act and recast for a better understanding the purport of the said provision is somewhat as follows. ( 8 ) IF we paraphrase sub-section (1) of Section 679aa of the Act and recast for a better understanding the purport of the said provision is somewhat as follows. If a situation results in which Municipal administration cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the financial stability of the council is threatened due to (i) willful disobedience or willful misbehaviour or (ii) if a Mayor or Deputy Mayor or a member willfully misbehaved or manhandled any other member or officer or employee of the Corporation; or iii) destroyed the property of the Corporation or iv) used unparliamentary language or abused his position in the course of meetings of the Corporation or during the discharge of any duty or (v) misused his office in the discharge of duties, such mayor, Deputy Mayor or a member may be suspended by the Government. In this case, there is no allegation that the petitioner used unparliamentary language or abused his position in the course of meetings of the Corporation or in his discharge of duties as such member. The only allegation is that the petitioner willfully misbehaved and destroyed the property of the Corporation. The question, therefore, would be whether from the admitted facts it can be said that the petitioner has willfully disobeyed, misbehaved and willfully destroyed the property of the Corporation. The entire basis which led to passing of the impugned order is not any independent enquiry conducted by the Government. The order is passed on the report submitted by the Commissioner on 16-7-2003 regarding the alleged attack on the Commissioner and senior officiers of the corporation on 15-7-2003 by the petitioner. The crucial part of the report reads as under. ( 9 ) AFTER about 15 minutes of our reaching there the Corporator along with his followers rushed to the spot in an extremely agitated mood and started shouting at the officers. When the Additional Commissioner (South Zone) tried to intervene he was pushed back and threatened with dire consequences. The corporator started pushing and beating all the officers of HMWSSB present including the Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Executive Engineers and officers of HMWS and SB. Though the other members of the public tried to restrain him he was neither in a position to control himself nor listen to the people s problems. Sensing the situation, I thought it prudent to return. Though the other members of the public tried to restrain him he was neither in a position to control himself nor listen to the people s problems. Sensing the situation, I thought it prudent to return. I got into my vehicle along with Additional Commissioner (South Zone) and Additional commissioner (Health and Sanitation) and left the spot. As we were leaving and started coming out of the area, the Corporator and a few of his followers suddenly started attacking the carcade and those present by pelting huge stones. ( 10 ) THE drivers and other staff had to get out of the cars to save their lives. Even a bare look at the same would show that the people who gathered at Bagh e jahan Araara, were agitated and when the Additional Commissioner tried to intervene, the petitioner questioned and dashed the Additional Commissioner. Further, the report goes on that when the Commissioner thought it prudent to return and got into the vehicle along with the Additional Commissioner (South zone) and Additional Commissioner (Health and Sanitation) and started leaving the area, the petitioner and few others allegedly started attacking the carcade by pelting stones and that drivers and other staff had to get out of the cars to save their lives. However, the Commissioner s car did not stop and left the place. This report is at variance with the report submitted by the other officers like Additional Commissioner (South Zone) and Additional Commissioner (Health and Sanitation) and another official of HMWSSB. The same is to the following effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sri Amjadullah Khan, Corporator, Chanchalguda Division along with his followers rushed to the spot in an agitating mood and started shouting at the officers. When the Additional Commissioner (South Zone), MCH tried to pacify the Corporator and tried to explain the position, the said Corporator pushed additional Commissioner (South Zone), abused and threatened him with dire consequences. Subsequently he started beating up the HMWSSB employees and also started pushing the AMOH and and the Executive Engineers of MCH. He was neither in a position to control himself nor listen to the citizens problems. He was blaming MCH and HMWSSB for the death of the child and demanding Rs. 1 lakh and threatened to go away and not to tour the area. He was neither in a position to control himself nor listen to the citizens problems. He was blaming MCH and HMWSSB for the death of the child and demanding Rs. 1 lakh and threatened to go away and not to tour the area. When the frightened officers started withdrawing from the area sensing trouble, the Corporator suddenly started pelting stones at the vehicles of MCH and HMWSSB. The Drivers who were in the vehicles got out of the cars and started running down the streets. The said corporator along with his followers continued pelting stones at the officers and staff. In the process two of the drivers were severely injured due to stone pelting. . . . . . . . . . . ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the report of the senior officers as seen from the above, the petitioner was blaming the officials of the Corporation and HMWSSB for the death of the child and demanding presumably a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. He threatened them to go away and not to tour the area. When the officials were about to leave, he started pelting stones. The Commissioner says that when the car started there was pelting on the carcade and the report of the officers says that the petitioner and others allegedly started throwing when they were about to leave. In both the reports, except briefly pointing out some followers of the Corporator, the number is absent. Both the reports do not speak of death of the child two days earlier allegedly due to viral fever as a result of poor sanitary arrangements. Both the reports admit that the people who gathered at the spot were in an agitating mood. A careful reading of the reports indeed support the version of the petitioner to some extent. There is no doubt that there is some controversy as to whether the petitioner was present at the time Commissioner was present at the spot or came 15 minutes thereafter. This cannot, however, be gone into in these proceedings for the reason that a criminal case is already registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Rein Bazar and also due to the reason that it is a disputed question of fact. This cannot, however, be gone into in these proceedings for the reason that a criminal case is already registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Rein Bazar and also due to the reason that it is a disputed question of fact. Even assuming that the petitioner was present with his followers in an agitating mood by the time the Commissioner went to the spot, can it be said that the petitioner and his followers acted in a pre-planned manner in which event alone the attack is willful The answer to the question certainly must be negative. ( 12 ) THE petitioner has placed before this Court various newspaper clippings reporting the incident that occurred in the area on 13th, 14th and 15th July, 2003. Indeed, the learned Govt. Pleader also does not dispute that a child died due to some disease, which ultimately resulted in severe pulmonary hemorrhage. He also does not deny that after the onset of monsoon in 2003, for about a week or so, there was widespread viral fever of epidemic proportion. A boy aged four years died and there were complaints of poor and inadequate sanitary conditions in the area. Naturally, people who are projected to these diseases get agitated. Being the representative of the locality the petitioner who is required to take care of the welfare of the people and the people of the area, having come to know about the visit of the Commissioner, were extremely worked up and indeed they questioned the Additional Commissioner (South Zone ). When he tried to pacify the situation, then only the petitioner appears to have pushed back him requesting him to go back from the area. This factual scenario might have resulted in pelting of stones on the car of the Commissioner. This, however, cannot be attributed to the petitioner as a guilt. It is now well settled that the term willful connotes such conduct on the part of a person who acts in such a manner knowing fully well about the consequences of such injury or such behaviour. If a person s conduct results in damage to the property, the same can never be treated as willful misbehaviour. Section 679aa refers to willful misbehaviour or willful destruction of property. If a person s conduct results in damage to the property, the same can never be treated as willful misbehaviour. Section 679aa refers to willful misbehaviour or willful destruction of property. It would be wrong to infer that a duly elected Corporator of the Municipal corporation would behave willfully in destroying the property unless such allegations are proved by acceptable evidence. The impugned order concludes that the petitioner s explanation does not reveal any clinching evidence on the face of the record. It is the Government who issued the show cause notice indicting the petitioner for willful behaviour. Therefore, it is for the respondents to clinchingly prove before this Court that the conduct of the petitioner on 15-7-2003 would attract the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 679aa of the Act. Though it refers to statements allegedly made by officers, those statements are not placed before me. The petitioner has placed before the Court the report submitted by the officers of the Corporation and HMWSSB and also the report submitted by the Commissioner. These reports cannot be treated as conclusive insofar as considering the merits of the case. These reports at best may be set on process under sub-section (1) of Section 679aa of the Act, but they can never be treated as conclusive proof for exercising power by the government. Section 679aa, as stated, was inserted by A. P. Act No. 13 of 1999. ( 13 ) THE Act was preceded by Legislative Assembly Bill No. 6 of 1999. The statement of objects and reasons appended to the Bill reads as under. Statement of Objects and Reasons in order to ensure discipline during the Council meeting and for smooth running of the affairs of the Municipalities and the Municipal Corporations, the government have decided to amend the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 as well as Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 empowering the Government to suspend the Chairperson/mayor or Vice-Chairperson/deputy Mayor or Member, who in their opinion, willfully misbehaved or manhandled any other Member or Officer or employee of the Council or Corporation or used unparliamentary language or abused his position in the course of meetings of the Council or Corporation or during discharge of the official duties vested upon any Chairperson/mayor or vice-Chairperson/deputy Mayor or Member or Officer or employee. ( 14 ) THE intention of the legislature for introducing Section 679aa in HMC Act and section 59a in A. P. Municipalities Act is very clear from the statement of objects and reasons. It was done in order to ensure discipline during the council meetings and for smooth running of the affairs of the Municipalities and municipal Corporations. It was also intended to empower the Government to suspend Chairperson/mayor or Vice-Chairman or Deputy Mayor or a member who, in the opinion of the Government, willfully misbehaved or manhandled any other member or officer or employee of the Corporation or destroyed the property. The provision is of drastic nature. It is a penal provision, which, in a given case, can as well prohibit any elected member from attending Council meetings and represent in the meetings. Therefore, being a penal provision, it must be interpreted strictly. A reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in sahik Ghulam Rasool v. State of A. P. wherein it was held that any law which is of penal nature must be strictly construed and that before an order is passed, the authority must satisfy itself that all the ingredients therefor have been satisfied keeping in view the proposition of law that confiscation is depriving the property. It was also held that extent of mens rea is essential ingredient and plays a vital role. So interpreting Section 679aa of the Act, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader for Municipal administration that the ingredients for exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 679aa of the Act are present in the case. It must, therefore, be held that the order suffers from illegality. ( 15 ) IN a recent judgment in State of A. P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, the Supreme Court considered the scope of legal malice and observed as under. The legal meaning of malice is "ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action". This is sometimes described as "malice in fact". "legal malice" or "malice in law" means "something done without lawful excuse". In other words, "it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others". This is sometimes described as "malice in fact". "legal malice" or "malice in law" means "something done without lawful excuse". In other words, "it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others". (See Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 3rd Edn. , London Butterworths, 1989. ). . . . . . . Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. If at all it is malice in legal sense, it can be described as an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. Prof. Wade in his authoritative work on Administrative Law (8th edn. , at p. 14) based on English decisions and in the context of alleged illegal acquisition proceedings, explains that an action by the State can be described mala fide if it seeks to "acquire land" "for a purpose not authorised by the act". The State, if it wishes to acquire land, should exercise its power bona fide for the statutory purpose and for none other. . . . . . . . . . . Legal malice, therefore, on the part of the State as attributed to it should be understood to mean that the action of the State is not taken bona fide for the purpose of the land Acquisition Act and it has been taken only to frustrate the favourable decisions obtained by the owner of the property against the State in the eviction and writ proceedings. ( 16 ) IF the authority exercised power without regard to the facts disclosed before it, the same amounts to exercise of power with malice in law though this case may not fall in the category of malice in law. The second point for consideration is method and manner of exercise of power. After receiving the show cause notice dated 18-7-2003, the petitioner submitted an explanation running into four pages. He also referred to mitigating circumstances in his favour. The Government did not consider this. After referring to the incidents that occurred on 15-7-2003 as contained in the report submitted by the Commissioner, the Government concluded as under. After receiving the show cause notice dated 18-7-2003, the petitioner submitted an explanation running into four pages. He also referred to mitigating circumstances in his favour. The Government did not consider this. After referring to the incidents that occurred on 15-7-2003 as contained in the report submitted by the Commissioner, the Government concluded as under. And whereas, with reference to the above said show cause notice, Sri Amjadullah khan, Corporator, Chanchalguda Division, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has submitted his explanation in the reference 3rd read above which does not reveal any clinching evidence of his innocence against the host of witness statements filed by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Hence Sri amjadullah Khan is held liable for suspension under sub-section (1) of Section 679aa of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. ( 17 ) EXCEPT stating that the petitioner did not produce any clinching evidence, no reasons are disclosed. There is not even a whisper that the petitioner s conduct has resulted in a situation by which administration of Municipal corporation cannot be carried on or that financial stability of the Corporation is threatened. This is in spite of the fact that the Commissioner observing that the alleged conduct of the petitioner results in large scale ramifications in future. The impugned order does not even say that the ramifications apprehended by the Commissioner will be true if an order of suspension is not passed. In a matter like this, what would be the effect of non-disclosure of reasons. ( 18 ) DISCLOSURE of reasons to be discussed - It has been repeatedly held by the courts that administrative authorities exercising statutory quasi judicial powers have to give reasons for their decisions. The non-disclosure of reasons or unreasoned order, is now settled, would violate principles of natural justice (See S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ). While it is now well settled that when a statutory/executive order failed to disclose reasons, the same would violate the rule of natural justice. Judicial review is now accepted as a basic structure of the Constitution. If statutory orders do not give any reasons, the power of judicial review would itself be rendered nugatory, for there would not be any material for this Court to review. Judicial review is now accepted as a basic structure of the Constitution. If statutory orders do not give any reasons, the power of judicial review would itself be rendered nugatory, for there would not be any material for this Court to review. ( 19 ) WHERE the Court comes to a conclusion that the order impugned is bad for non-disclosure of reasons, ordinarily the Court remits back the matter to the authority. In this case, however, while considering the first point, the Court has concluded that the facts disclosed do not warrant exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. The submission made by the learned Govt. Pleader needs to be considered. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that by reason of sub-section (3) of Section 679 aa of the Act, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the Government or the Government may suo motu revoke the suspension order. This according to the learned Govt. Pleader is a sufficient safeguard against any arbitrary exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 679aa of the Act. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the same. The power conferred on the Government is a drastic power which needs to be exercised in a rare case having regard to the objects for which the provision was inserted by the legislature by A. P. Act No. 13 of 1999. Unfortunately, the time during which the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or a member can be placed under suspension is not there. The Government cannot keep them under suspension perennially, say for a term of five years. I am also of the considered opinion that after insertion of Article 49a of Constitution (Seventy-fourth) Amendment Act, 1992, unless and until it is considered to be necessary, an elected body cannot be suspended or dissolved. Similarly, an elected member cannot be suspended for a technical reason. ( 20 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to exercise all rights, powers and privileges as a Corporator or Municipal Corporation of hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.