THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.45 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant; Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned Government Pleader
for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development representing
respondents No.1 to 3; and Mr. G.Narender Reddy, learned
counsel for respondents No.4 to 10.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.26440 of 2021 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition questioning the Form-IV notice dated 14.10.2021 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District i.e., respondent No.3 proposing to conduct No-Confidence Motion meeting against the appellant on 06.11.2021.
::2::
4. Be it stated that appellant was elected as a member of Kolthur Gram Panchayat in the year 2019. The said Gram Panchayat has twelve ward members, who amongst themselves had elected the appellant as Upa Sarpanch.
5. It appears that seven ward members i.e., respondents No.4 to 10 had declared 'No-Confidence' against the appellant and had sent a requisition to respondent No.3, who, in turn, issued Form-IV notice on 14.10.2021 proposing to hold a No-Confidence Motion meeting under Section 30(1) and (2) of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter). This came to be challenged by the appellant in the related writ petition by contending that neither Form-I notice nor copy of the resolution expressing 'No-Confidence' was enclosed to the Form-IV notice. On 10.11.2021, a learned Single Judge of this Court had granted interim stay.
6. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on behalf of the State that out of the twelve elected ward members, seven members had submitted Form-I notice on 11.10.2021 against the ::3::
appellant. Therefore, respondent No.3 had signed the proposal for holding No-Confidence Motion meeting. While doing so, respondent No.3 had verified the genuineness of the proposal initiated by the seven ward members whereafter Form-IV notices were issued on 14.10.2021 fixing 06.11.2021 as the date for holding the meeting to discuss No-Confidence Motion against the appellant. The said notices were served upon all the elected members on 14.10.2021 itself including the appellant. Thus, fifteen clear days' notice was given. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.04.2002, it was not necessary to disclose the reasons of No-Confidence Motion. In the meeting held on 06.11.2021, a total of seven ward members attended which was more than half of the total ward members. They unanimously voted expressing No- Confidence against the Upa Sarpanch i.e., the appellant. Thereafter, resolution of the meeting of No-Confidence Motion was submitted to the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (respondent No.2) who issued proceedings dated 09.11.2021 under Section 30(2) of the Act removing the appellant from the office of ::4::
Upa Sarpanch. However, in view of the interim stay granted by the learned Single Judge, no further steps were taken.
7. Learned Single Judge noted that grievance of the appellant was that while submitting Form-I notice (requisition) to respondent No.3, reasons for such No-Confidence Motion were not enclosed. Learned Single Judge was not impressed with such contention and took the view that a democratic process cannot be stalled on technicalities. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
8. In the hearing today, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has placed before us a copy of the notification dated 07.01.2023 issued by the District Collector for Medchal- Malkajgiri District (respondent No.2) which reads as under:
1. Whereas, a motion expressing no confidence against Sri P.Jaipal Reddy, Upa-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kolthur of Muduchintalapally Mandal was moved under Section 30 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018
2. And whereas, a special meeting for the purpose of considering the above motion was held on 06.11.2021 at 11.00 AM in the office of the Gram Panchayat Kolthur of Muduchintalapally Mandal in the presence of Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara.
::5::
3. And whereas, the said motion was put to vote, the total members in the Gram Panchayat are (12+Sarpanch) out of which (7) ward members have attended the said meeting and it was passed with requisite (one half of the total members) majority as reported by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara.
4. Now therefore, in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court vide reference 3rd read above and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of the Section 30 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, Sri P.Jaipal Reddy, Upa- Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kolthur of Muduchintalapally Mandal is hereby removed from the post of Upa-Sarpanch of Kolthur Gram Panchayat of Muduchintalapally Mandal of Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
9. In M.Surender v. State of Telangana1, we had taken the following view:
Panchayats as well as municipalities have now been brought under the constitutional scheme by way of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. The fundamental principle governing panchayats and municipalities is that these bodies are to be run and managed on the strength of popular mandate. A person cannot hold onto office without having the majority support. Learned Government Pleader has pointed out that the Revenue Divisional Officer 1 W.A.No.627 of 2022 dt.23.09.2022 ::6::
had only conveyed the sentiments of the majority members by issuing the notice which is nothing but consequential. We are therefore of the view that on the basis of technicalities, an elected representative cannot evade the test to determine as to whether he enjoys majority support or whether he should continue in office
10. Following the above, in I.Rajanna v. State of Telangana2, this Court took the view that it is incumbent upon a person holding an elected office to have the majority support. When a motion of No-Confidence is moved against him, he has to face the majority test.
11. Evidently in the present case, out of the twelve ward members, seven have expressed their No-Confidence in the appellant. No-Confidence Motion has been passed against the appellant and following dismissal of the writ petition filed by him, consequential notification has been issued by respondent No.2 on 07.01.2023.
2 W.A.No.792 of 2022 dt.06.12.2022 ::7::
12. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand dismissed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 09.01.2023 LUR