Telangana High Court
Sri Sundara Pandian Kalidasan vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 24 June, 2021
Bench: T.Amarnath Goud
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
****
W.P.No.12704 of 2021
Between:
Sri Sundara Pandian Kalidasan
Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Telangana
and Others.
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 24.6.2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No
_________________________
T.AMARNATH GOUD, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMRNATH GOUD
+ WRIT PETITION No.12704 OF 2021
% 24.6.2021
# Sri Sundara Pandian Kalidasan
Petitioner
VERSUS
$ State of Telangana
and Others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner Sri K. Pradeep Reddy
^ Counsel for the respondents Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development
Sri Vedula Venkata
Ramana for respondent
Nos.7 and 8.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 2011 (4) ALD 123
2 (2011) 9 SCC 573
3 1998 (2) MPLJ 661
4 (1969) 2 ALT 296
5 (2010) 12 SCC 1
6 (2015) 8 SCC 1
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
WRIT PETITION No.12704 OF 2021
ORDER:
1 Petitioner has been elected as a Ward Member of 13th
Ward of Kallakal Gram Panchayat, Toopran Mandal, Medak
District and also Upa-Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat
in the general elections held in the month of January, 2019.
The 4th respondent served a notice No.H/188/2021 dated
27.02.2021 on the petitioner stating that he received a
proposal for no confidence motion under Form-I dated
19.02.2021 from the Ward Members of Kallakal Gram
Panchayat and called a meeting on 17.3.2021 at 11.00 AM at
the office of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the
proposed no confidence motion.
2. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.5804 of 2021 contending that the said notice was not in
compliance with the Section 30 (1) and (2) of T.S. Panchayat
Raj Act, 2018 and Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules relating to
motion of no confidence against the Upa Sarpanch in
G.O.Ms.No.200 PR & RD dated 28.4.1998. In the said Writ
Petition initially an interim order was passed on 15.3.2021
staying the further proceedings in pursuance of the said
notice and ultimately the said Writ Petition has been Allowed
vide orders dated 28.4.2021 giving liberty to the respondents
to proceed to take steps in accordance with law.
3. The petitioner further submits that thereafter the 4th
respondent - RDO again issued the impugned notice
No.H/824/2021 dated 26.5.2021 under Form IV under
Section 30 (1) of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and called for a
meeting on 15.6.2021 at 11.30 AM for considering the alleged
no confidence motion and the same was served on the
petitioner on 27.5.2021.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Toopran Division,
Medak District, the 4th respondent herein filed counter stating
that on 25.5.2021 twelve members of the Gram Panchayat,
Kallakal, have submitted the proposal of no confidence motion
against the petitioner along with Form No.1 and he having
satisfied that the said notice was in accordance with law and
as per the provisions of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200
dated 28.4.2002, issued the impugned notice to the petitioner
in Form IV on 26.5.2021. He further submitted that in the
earlier round of litigation, this Hon'ble Court Allowed Writ
Petition No.5804 of 2021 vide orders dated 28.4.2021 setting
aside the initial notice of no confidence motion
No.H/188/2021 dated 27.02.2021, but gave liberty to the
respondents that even if they are so advised, they shall
proceed to take steps in accordance with law.
5. It is further submitted that the Memorandum of No
confidence motion submitted by the 12 members of the Gram
Panchayat, kallakal on 25.5.2021 is based on the earlier
proposals of no confidence motion which were stalled by this
Court pending the above Writ Petition and hence the
allegation of the petitioner that the members have submitted
the proposal of no confidence motion 2nd time against the
petitioner within a period of two years from the 1st proposals
and the same is not permitted under law is totally false and
baseless. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. While the matter stood thus, two ward members of
Kallakal village by name T.Raju Yadav and Y. Nagaraju filed
I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking to implead as respondent Nos.7 and
8 in this Writ Petition. They have been impleaded
accordingly. Their contention is more or less on the same
lines of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent.
7. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 contended that the first
meeting itself was not convened for no confidence motion,
when the 1st notice was served on the petitioner, at the stage
of serving of Form IV notice, the petitioner approached this
Court and obtained interim stay, as such the ground raised
by the petitioner cannot be made applicable. The petitioner
wrongly interpreted the G.O.Ms.No.200 PR and RD dated
28.4.1998 and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Mr.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
would submit that Section 30 (1) of Telangana State
Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 prohibits the second no confidence
motion before expiry of two years from the date of first no
confidence motion. He would further submit that Rule 2 of
the Rules relating to no confidence motion in G.O.Ms.No.200
dated 28.4.1998, which are being adopted till date,
contemplates that no notice of motion shall be made against
the same person more than once during his term of office. He
would further submit that the earlier no confidence motion
dated 27.02.2021 was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition
No.5804 of 2021 vide orders dated 28.4.2021 and hence
issuance of the impugned notice dated 26.5.2021 which is
within the duration of two years from the date of earlier notice
is not permitted under Section 30 of the T.S.Panchayat Raj
Act. The learned counsel relied on the ratio laid down in
Torlakonda Mangamma Vs. The Government of A.P1.
9. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for
Gram Panchayat would submit that the earlier notice of no
confidence motion against the petitioner was set aside due to
which meeting to consider the no confidence motion against
the petitioner could not be conducted and the process of No-
Confidence Motion could not be completed and the same is
now set in motion as required by twelve members of the Gram
Panchayat in their proposal dated 25.5.2021. The present
proceedings are continuation of the earlier no confidence
motion proceedings but not a fresh one. She relied on the
following judgments: Pratap Chndra Mehta V. State Bar
Council of Madhya Pradesh2, Muku Bai V. State of M.P3, V.
1 2011 (4) ALD 123
2 (2011) 9 SCC 573
Subba Rao V. Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak4 and
Bhanumati V. State of U.P.5.
10. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel
appearing for the impleaded respondents submitted that it is
not direct election and it is indirect election, where all Ward
members elected petitioner as Upa Sarpanch and now they
lost confidence and moved no confidence and further argued
that since the first meeting was not convened to move the no
confidence motion against the petitioner, the impugned notice
in this Writ Petition is to be treated as the first one. He relied
on the ratio laid down in Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary V. Gujarat
Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited6 wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
18. In Pratap Chandra Mehta V. State Bar Council of
M.P. (2011) 9 SCC 573 and in Usha Bharti V. State of U.P.
(2014) 7 SCC 663, the concept of democratic principles
governing the democratic institutions have been
discussed. In a democratic institution, confidence is the
foundation on which the superstructure of democracy is
built. The bedrock of democratic accountability rests on
the confidence of the electorate. If the representative
body does not have confidence in the office bearer whom
they have selected, democracy demands such officer to
be removed in a democratic manner.
19. A cooperative society is registered on
cooperative principles of democracy, equity, equality and
solidarity. Democratic accountability, mutual trust,
fairness, impartiality, unity of agreement of feeling
among the delegates, cooperativeness, etc,. are some of
the cardinal dimensions of the cooperative principles. A
body built on such principles cannot be led by a captain
in whom the co-sailors have no confidence.
20. In Bhanumati V. State of U.P. (2010) 12 SCC 1
at para 67, this Court elaborated on this principle:
"67. Any head of democratic institution must be
prepared to face the test of confidence. Neither the
democratically elected Prime Minister of the country nor
3 1998 (2) MPLJ 661
4 (1969) 2 ALT 296
5 (2010) 12 SCC 1
6 (2015) 8 SCC 1
the Chief Minister of a State is immune from such a test
of confidence under the Rules of Procedure framed under
Articles 118 and 208 of the Constitution. Both the Prime
Minister of India and Chief Ministers of several States
heading the Council of Ministers at the Centre and in
several States respectively have to adhere to the
principles of collective responsibilities to their respective
houses in accordance with Articles 75(3) and 164 (2) of
the Constitution."
11. Before adverting to the rival contentions, I deem it
apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of law, which read
as under:
12. Section 30 of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018:
Motion of no confidence in Upa-Sarpanch:
(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the
Upa-Sarpanch may be made by giving a written notice of
intention to move the motion in such form and to such
authority as may be prescribed, singed by not less than
one half of the total number of members of the Gram
Panchayat, and further action on such notice shall be
taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Provided that no confidence of motion under this
Section shall be made within two years of the date of
assumption of office by the Upa-Sarpanch.
Provided further that no such notice shall be made
against the same Upa-Sarpanch more than twice during
his term of office and the second no-confidence motion
shall not be initiated before the expiry of two years from
the date of first no-confidence motion.
Rule No.2 of the Rules relating to Motion of
No-Confidence against Upa-Sarpanch of the
Gram Panchayat, or President or Vice-President
of Mandal Parishad, or Chairperson or Vice-
Chairperson of the Zilla Parishad.
2. A notice of the intention to make the motion shall
be made in Form-1, in Form-11 and in Form III 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
Parishad, or Zilla Parishad as the case may be, together
with a copy of the proposed motion, and shall be delivered
in person by 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
Parishad; or to the District Collector in the case of
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Zilla Parishad, as
the case may be;
Provided that no notice of motion under this rule
shall be made within two years of the date of assumption
of office by the person against whom the motion is sought
to be moved.
Provided further that no such notice shall be made
against the same person more than once during his term
of office.
13. As per Section 30 of the T.S.Panchayat Raj Act, 2018
Motion of no confidence in Upa-Sarpanch, President or
Chairperson, shall be moved by not less than one-half of the
total number of members of the Gram Panchayat. In the case
on hand 12 out of 14 members have moved the no confidence
motion against the petitioner and they have given their
representation in Form I. So there is no dispute with regard
to quorum.
14. No doubt, the respondents have power to move no
confidence but the requirements need to be fulfilled. The Act
does not speak about passing of no confidence motion. It
says about moving of no confidence only. Once a requuisition
is moved by members seeking to move no confidence motion,
itself means Section 30 came into play and the result i.e.
whether such motion moved is passed or not in the meeting is
immaterial.
15. Once no confidence motion has been moved and has
been defeated because of legal requisites, it is to be deemed
that the no confidence motion is moved. There is no
ambiguity in the Section and Rules. The objective of the
provision clearly is to prevent frivolous No Confidence Motions
repeatedly within one year if the earlier one has not even
moved or has been defeated because of want of legal
requisites.
16. A glance at the impugned notice shows that it was
admittedly issued by the RDO for the second time. The
significant words in the second proviso to Section 30 of the
Act clearly indicates that no such notice shall be made
against the same Upa-Sarpanch more than twice during his
term of office and the second no-confidence motion shall not
be initiated before the expiry of two years from the date of first
no-confidence motion.
17. The official respondents have completely lost sight of
the said provision and exercised their power arbitrarily. This
power has to be exercised in true letter and spirit and with all
care but not in a casual manner.
18. For the first time the no confidence motion notice in
W.P.No.5804 of 2021 was issued on 19.02.2021 in Form I and
the meeting was scheduled on 17.3.2021. Whereas the
impugned notice in this Writ Petition was issued on 26.5.2021
for the second time stating that a no confidence motion will be
moved on 15.6.2021, which is within a period of two years
from the first notice. No confidence motion can be moved
provided the requirements provided under the statute are
fulfilled. But at the same time there is legal / statutory
restriction and limitation.
19. The observation of this Court in W.P.No.5804 of 2021
"However, liberty is given to the respondents that even if they
are so advised, they shall proceed to take steps in accordance
with law", have to be read in consonance with Section 30 and
the Rules applicable. But it does not mean this Court has
granted permission to respondents to act in contravention to
the Statute. There is no ambiguity in the observation made
by this Court in the order stated supra.
20. Once action is initiated under Section 30, it means that
the action is put in motion. It is not necessary that the entire
action is to be completed. Section 30 does not speak about
whether the no confidence motion is passed or not. On the
other hand the Rule only contemplates the procedure to be
adopted. Since the action initiated under section 30 is set
aside in the earlier Writ Petition, it has to be treated as first
instance.
21. In view of the proviso to Section 30, two years period
has to be followed for moving second no confidence motion.
Since the first notice of no confidence motion is set aside, the
respondents need to wait for two years as per the proviso to
Section 30. The respondents have not taken into
consideration the central idea of Section 30 of the Act as
stated supra.
22. The judgments relied on by the learned Government
pleader as well as the learned counsel for the impleading
respondents have no relevance to resolve the issue involved in
the case on hand.
23. For the above reasons, this Court is of the firm view
that the respondents have not followed the legal position in
strict compliance and accordingly the Writ Petition deserves to
be allowed. The impugned notice issued by 4th respondent on
26.05.2021 is liable to be set aside and the same is
accordingly set aside.
24 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to
costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Writ
Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Date:24.6.2021.
L.R. Copy be marked.
B/o Kvsn
