THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.12469 OF 2021
ORDER:
Challenging the issuance of Form-IV notice No.B/1419/2021, dated 18.05.2021 by respondent No.4 scheduling the meeting on 05.06.2021 for the purpose of moving the motion of no-confidence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Form-IV notice dated 18.05.2021 was received by the petitioner on 23.05.2021 and along with the same, neither the Form-I nor the proposed motion of no-confidence was enclosed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the Form-IV notice, dated 18.05.2021, the meeting is scheduled to be held on 05.06.2021 and the same was served on the petitioner on 23.05.2021, which is in violation of Rules 2 and 3 stipulated under G.O. Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998 which specifies that 15 days clear notice should be there between the date of notice and the date of the proposed meeting. Learned counsel has further stated that 15 days period should be calculated from the date of service of notice on the petitioner i.e. 23.05.2021 and if the same is taken into consideration the 15 days period is not met and therefore seeks to set aside the impugned Form-IV notice.
Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents has contended that the official 2 respondents have strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Rules 2 and 3 enunciated under G.O. Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998. That out of 12 ward members, 9 ward members have submitted the letter of the proposed no-confidence motion along with Form-I and based on the same, the Form-IV notice was issued to the petitioner. That the requirement of 15 days clear notice has been met as the notice is dated 18.05.2021 and the date of the scheduled meeting is on 05.06.2021 which is well after 15 days. That mere service of Form-IV after a few days delay cannot be a ground to set aside the Form-IV notice and relied on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. K. Sujatha vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh1 to buttress her contentions. Therefore, she prayed this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition with costs.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader has stated that respondent Nos.5 to 9 along with some other ward members have submitted the Letter of the proposed no-confidence motion along with Form-I notice to respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and they have followed the procedure contemplated under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, as well as the Rules framed thereunder. It is further stated that the allegations made by the petitioner that he has not 1 2004 (2) APLJ 330 (HC) 3 received the proposed no-confidence motion and Form-I is without any substance and contrary to the record.
Perused the material on record.
A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner has enclosed only Form-IV notice dated 18.05.2021 wherein the meeting is scheduled to be held on 05.06.2021 but the Form-I or letter of the proposed motion of no- confidence has not been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has called for the original record pertaining to the present Form-IV notice and accordingly, the original record has been placed before this Court.
A perusal of the original record shows that out of 12 ward members, 9 ward members have submitted the letter of the proposed no-confidence motion to the RDO, who has endorsed the said letter on 17.05.2021 by the RDO concerned. But, the record reveals that no Form-I notice was submitted by the said ward members along with the letter of the proposed no-confidence motion to the RDO concerned.
Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998, read as under:
"2. A notice of the intention to make the motion shall be in Form-I, in Form-II annexed to these rules either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat, [Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Parishad] as the case may be, together with a copy of the proposed motion, and shall be delivered in person by 4 any two of the members who signed such notice, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-collector or Assistant Collector, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the case of Upa-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat; or President and Vice-President of a [Mandal Praja Parishad]; or to the District Collector in the case of Chairman and Vice- Chairman of [Zilla Praja Parishad] as the case may be;
"3. The concerned officer specified in Rule 2 (hereinafter) in this rule referred to as said officer shall then convene and preside over a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of a Gram Panchayat, or at the [Mandal Praja Parishad] ... the [Zilla Praja Parishad], as the case may be, on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Rule 2 was delivered to him. He shall give to every member of Gram Panchayat, [Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad], as the case may be, the notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting of such meeting in Form-IV, or in Form-V or in Form-VI annexed to these rules either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, whichever is applicable."
(emphasis added) As per the above extracted Rules, the Ward Members have to submit the Form-I notice along with the letter of the proposed motion of no-confidence to the RDO concerned, based on which, the RDO can take further steps by issuing the Form-IV notice. But, in this case, as seen from the record, immediately after receipt of the proposed no-confidence motion, without there being any Form-I notice, the RDO has issued the Form-IV notice.
A learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.19060 and 21746 of 2008, dated 29.10.2008, has held as under:
"12. Various steps prescribed by the principal or subordinate legislature, be it in relation to election of 5 representatives for the statutory or local bodies, or matters relating thereto, need strict compliance. For instance, not only the manner in which the elections must be held, but also meticulous details to be followed in the process of voting, counting, etc, are stipulated, under the relevant provisions. Any deviation there from, which had the effect of diluting the mandate, would nullify the election process. Section 245 of the Act and the Rules are akin to election process, may be in the reverse direction. Compared to the procedure prescribed for election, the one stipulated for dislodging an elected representative must be complied in a more meticulous manner. This is in addition to the well established principle that where law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be in that manner, or not at all."
For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred judgment, the issuance of Form-IV notice by the RDO concerned without submission of any Form-I notice as mandated under Rules 2 and 3 enunciated under G.O. Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998, is not only arbitrary, bad and illegal, but also one without jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Form-IV notice dated 18.05.2021 issued by respondent No.4.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J 14.10.2022 sur