THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT APPEAL No.132 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Janardhan Goud Sunkari, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned
Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development Department representing the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.44532 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking the following relief:
To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.4 herein in issuing the impugned notice in Form-IV No. G/3621/2022, dt. 23.11.2022 under Section 30(1) of 2 the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 20l8 without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Rule 2 & 3 of GO Ms.No.200 PR & RD dt. 28.04.1998 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. Thus, appellant sought for quashing of the notice dated 23.11.2022 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda.
5. Matter relates to holding of meeting to discuss no confidence motion against the appellant who was holding the office of Upa Sarpanch in Ipparthi Gram Panchayat. Be it stated that Ipparthi Gram Panchayat has got eight ward members who were elected in the elections which were held in the year 2019. Appellant was elected as ward member from ward No.4. Subsequent to their election, the eight ward members elected from amongst themselves the appellant as the Upa Sarpanch of Ipparthi Gram Panchayat. For various reasons, five members of the Gram Panchayat expressed no confidence in the appellant, 3 whereafter Form-IV notice dated 23.11.2022 was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer which was served upon the appellant on 25.11.2022.
6. There is a dispute as to the service of notice upon the appellant. While according to the appellant, notice was served on 05.12.2022, whereas according to the respondents, notice was served on 25.11.2022.
7. Be that as it may, the meeting to discuss no confidence motion was scheduled on 16.12.2022. Contending that the meeting was being scheduled in violation of having minimum fifteen days time in the interregnum, the related writ petition came to be filed.
8. Initially, learned Single Judge passed an interim order directing that the meeting to discuss no confidence motion would go on but result thereof should not be declared.
4
9. In the proceedings held on 16.12.2022 learned Single Judge noticed that a total of six members out of eight members had made the requisition to the Revenue Divisional Officer expressing no confidence in the appellant. Learned Single Judge took the view that when admittedly majority of the members had expressed no confidence in the appellant, he could not hold on to office on a technical ground that there was no fifteen days gap in between the receipt of notice and holding of meeting.
10. In the meeting, six out of the eight members supported the no confidence motion. Therefore, even if the aforesaid exercise is directed to be redone in tune with the requirement of law, as prayed for by the appellant, the result is a foregone conclusion.
11. That being the position, we are of the view that no case for interference is made out.
12. Therefore, we decline to entertain the writ appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
5
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 31.01.2023 vs