THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.58 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. G.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant; Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development representing respondents No.1
to 5; and Mr. P.Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats representing respondent No.6.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.14401 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Matter pertains to No-Confidence Motion against the Upa Sarpanch of Deshaipally Gram Panchayat in Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District.
4. In the elections held in the month of January, 2019, appellant was elected as a ward member of the said Gram Panchayat. There are ::2::
altogether eight ward members of the said Gram Panchayat. The ward members among themselves elected the appellant as the Upa Sarpanch. In addition, there is a Sarpanch, who is directly elected. In all, there are nine members in the Gram Panchayat.
5. Notice dated 14.03.2022 was issued by respondent No.4 i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Huzurabad scheduling a meeting to discuss No-Confidence Motion against the appellant on 30.03.2022. This notice came to be challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filing the related writ petition.
6. According to the appellant, the notice dated 14.03.2022 was issued in contravention of Rule 2 of the Rules relating to Motion of No-Confidence against the Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) which are a set of statutory rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
7. As per Rule 2 of the Rules, notice of the intention to make the motion shall be made in Form-I, Form-II and Form-III, 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 together ::3::
with a copy of the proposed motion and shall be delivered in person by any two of the members, who signed such notice.
8. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the impugned notice was not accompanied by copy of the proposed motion, which is a mandatory requirement.
9. Writ petition was contested by respondent No.4 by filing counter-affidavit. It was mentioned that on 05.03.2022, five ward members had filed a proposal of No-Confidence Motion against the appellant before him in Form-1; after ascertaining the genuineness of the signatures of the ward members in Form-I and after ascertaining the quorum for submitting proposal of No-Confidence Motion, respondent No.4 had issued Form-IV notice on 14.03.2022 fixing 30.03.2022 as the date for holding the meeting to discuss No- Confidence Motion against the appellant; the notice was received by the appellant on 16.03.2022 and all the documents were served upon him on 17.03.2022; appellant had applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of a copy of Form-I notice and other documents, which were duly furnished to him.
::4::
10. It was therefore, contended that Rule 2 of the Rules were strictly complied with. In the meeting held on 30.03.2022, five members out of eight had expressed their No-Confidence in the appellant as Upa Sarpanch; thus, more than 50% of the ward members had lost their confidence in the appellant; however, because of the interim order passed by the writ court, the results were not declared.
11. Learned Single Judge had requisitioned the record and perused the same. Thereafter, learned Single Judge held as follows:
The main issue for consideration in the present writ petition is 'whether the letter of proposed motion of no-confidence has been submitted by the Ward members along with the Form-I notice as contemplated under Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules or not?' A perusal of the material on record, more particularly the original record produced by the learned Government Pleader, shows that the letter of proposed motion of no-confidence was enclosed with the Form-I and the RDO himself has signed on both the letters acknowledging the receipt of the same on 05.03.2022 and also directing the MPDO, Veenavanka, to verify the genuineness of the signatures of the ward members and submit a report. Thereafter, the Form-IV notice was issued on 14.03.2022 scheduling the meeting of no-confidence ::5::
on 30.03.2022. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the said letter of proposed motion of no-confidence has been fabricated and brought into existence subsequently and the said letter was not furnished to him when he sought for the same vide Right To Information Act application dated 16.03.2022 and therefore, it has to be necessarily held that the said letter of proposed no-confidence motion was subsequently brought into existence by the authorities concerned, but, a perusal of the application dated 16.03.2022 made by the petitioner under the RTI Act shows that the petitioner has only sought for furnishing copies of Form-I notice and memo. The petitioner has not specifically sought for furnishing copy of the letter of the proposed no-confidence motion. Therefore, it cannot be held that the letter of proposed no- confidence motion was not in existence or that it was brought into existence subsequently and therefore said contention urged by the petitioner is hereby negatived.
12. After referring to various judicial pronouncements of this Court, learned Single Judge took the view that there was no merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same.
13. Before us also, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was contravention of Rule 2 of the Rules inasmuch as along with Form-IV notice, the copy of proposed motion was not served upon him. This aspect of the matter was gone into by the learned ::6::
Single Judge in great detail. We are not inclined to re-appreciate the findings of the learned Single Judge based on materials on record.
14. This Court has held more than once that a person holding an elected office must have the majority support. He cannot hold on to the elected office on the strength of technicalities.
15. That being the position, we do not find any good ground to entertain the appeal.
16. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 11.01.2023 LUR