I. Rajanna vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 6519 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

                                AND

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


                 WRIT APPEAL No.792 of 2022


JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


      Heard Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned Government

Pleader    for   Panchayat      Raj   and    Rural    Development

Department for respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr. T.Srikanth

Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for

respondent No.3; Mr. P.Kishore Rao, learned counsel for

respondent No.4; and Mr. T.P.Acharya, learned counsel for

respondent No.5/writ petitioner.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the interim

order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge

in Writ Petition No.29768 of 2022 filed by the 5th

respondent as the writ petitioner.

                                2                      HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                 W.A.No.792 of 2022




      3.    5th   respondent       is   the    Upa-Sarpanch      of

Mugdumpuram        Gram    Panchayat          ('Gram   Panchayat'

hereinafter).     A notice was issued by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Narsampet on 29.06.2022 under Section

30(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 proposing

to hold 'No Confidence Motion' meeting against the 5th

respondent on 20.07.2022 at 11.00 A.M. This notice came

to be challenged in the related writ petition.

4. 5th respondent contended before the learned

Single Judge that the impugned notice was not in the

statutory format as prescribed under Form-IV besides

being contrary to Rule 3 of the Rules relating to moving of

motion of 'No Confidence' against Upa-Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat etc.

5. Learned Single Judge by the order dated

19.07.2022 noticed that Form-I did not disclose any date.

Therefore, while directing the respondents to produce the

original Form-I, learned Single Judge passed an interim 3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.792 of 2022

order to the effect that 'No Confidence Motion' meeting

could go on but the result should not be declared.

6. Assailing this order, the appeal has been

preferred by six members of the Gram Panchayat who had

moved the 'No Confidence Motion' against respondent No.5.

7. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for

the appellants submits that the Gram Panchayat has got

ten members, out of which six had moved the 'No

Confidence Motion'. In the meeting which was held on

20.07.2022 pursuant to order of the learned Single Judge,

seven members expressed 'No confidence' against

respondent No.5.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits

that when the impugned notice convening meeting for

discussing 'No Confidence Motion' itself is contrary to the

statute, question of taking any action on the basis of such

notice does not arise.

                                        4                      HCJ & CVBRJ
                                                         W.A.No.792 of 2022

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

and on due consideration, we are of the view that while the

procedure laid down under the statute are required to be

adhered to, but at the same time an elected representative

can only hold office, provided he has the majority support.

10. In Writ Appeal No.627 of 2022 (M.Surender v.

State of Telagnana), this Court has held as follows:

"12. 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 had only conveyed the sentiments of the majority members by issuing the notice which is nothing but consequential.

13. We are therefore of the view that on the basis of technicalities, an elected representative cannot evade the test to 5 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.792 of 2022

determine as to whether he enjoys majority support or whether he should continue in office."

11. Therefore and in the light of the above, we are of

the view that it is incumbent upon respondent No.5 to face

the majority test.

12. Consequently, we direct Revenue Divisional

Officer, Narsampet to hold meeting of the Gram Panchayat

to discuss 'No Confidence Motion' against the 5th

respondent within 20.12.2022. In the meanwhile, he shall

also take steps for serving the notice upon all members of

the Gram Panchayat in the prescribed format.

13. That being the position, we set aside the order

dated 19.07.2022 as well as dispose of Writ Petition

No.29768 of 2022.

14. In the light of the above, Writ Appeal is

disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                6                   HCJ & CVBRJ
                                              W.A.No.792 of 2022




    15.    As    a   sequel,       miscellaneous   applications

pending, if any, in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

___________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J

Date: 06.12.2022 KL