Smt. Chenagani Saidamma vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5119 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

                 WRIT PETITION NO.12469 OF 2021

ORDER:

Challenging the issuance of Form-IV notice No.B/1419/2021,

dated 18.05.2021 by respondent No.4 scheduling the meeting on

05.06.2021 for the purpose of moving the motion of no-confidence,

the present Writ Petition is filed.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the Form-IV notice dated 18.05.2021 was received by the

petitioner on 23.05.2021 and along with the same, neither the

Form-I nor the proposed motion of no-confidence was enclosed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the Form-IV

notice, dated 18.05.2021, the meeting is scheduled to be held on

05.06.2021 and the same was served on the petitioner on

23.05.2021, which is in violation of Rules 2 and 3 stipulated under

G.O. Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998 which

specifies that 15 days clear notice should be there between the date

of notice and the date of the proposed meeting. Learned counsel has

further stated that 15 days period should be calculated from the date

of service of notice on the petitioner i.e. 23.05.2021 and if the same

is taken into consideration the 15 days period is not met and

therefore seeks to set aside the impugned Form-IV notice.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing on

behalf of the official respondents has contended that the official

respondents have strictly followed the procedure contemplated under

Rules 2 and 3 enunciated under G.O. Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D.

(Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998. That out of 12 ward members, 9 ward

members have submitted the letter of the proposed no-confidence

motion along with Form-I and based on the same, the Form-IV notice

was issued to the petitioner. That the requirement of 15 days clear

notice has been met as the notice is dated 18.05.2021 and the date

of the scheduled meeting is on 05.06.2021 which is well after 15

days. That mere service of Form-IV after a few days delay cannot be

a ground to set aside the Form-IV notice and relied on the judgment

rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. K. Sujatha vs. The

Government of Andhra Pradesh1 to buttress her contentions.

Therefore, she prayed this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition with

costs.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial

respondents while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned

Government Pleader has stated that respondent Nos.5 to 9 along

with some other ward members have submitted the Letter of the

proposed no-confidence motion along with Form-I notice to

respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and they have

followed the procedure contemplated under the Telangana Panchayat

Raj Act, 2018, as well as the Rules framed thereunder. It is further

stated that the allegations made by the petitioner that he has not

1 2004 (2) APLJ 330 (HC)

received the proposed no-confidence motion and Form-I is without

any substance and contrary to the record.

Perused the material on record.

A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner along with

the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner has enclosed only Form-IV

notice dated 18.05.2021 wherein the meeting is scheduled to be held

on 05.06.2021 but the Form-I or letter of the proposed motion of no-

confidence has not been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court

has called for the original record pertaining to the present Form-IV

notice and accordingly, the original record has been placed before

this Court.

A perusal of the original record shows that out of 12 ward

members, 9 ward members have submitted the letter of the proposed

no-confidence motion to the RDO, who has endorsed the said letter

on 17.05.2021 by the RDO concerned. But, the record reveals that

no Form-I notice was submitted by the said ward members along

with the letter of the proposed no-confidence motion to the RDO

concerned.

Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.200, P.R.

& R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998, read as under:

"2. A notice of the intention to make the motion shall be in Form-I, in Form-II 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 Praja 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 Praja Parishad]; or to the District Collector in the case of Chairman and Vice- Chairman of [Zilla Praja Parishad] as the case may be;

"3. The concerned officer specified in Rule 2 (hereinafter) in this rule referred to as said officer shall then convene and preside over a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of a Gram Panchayat, or at the [Mandal Praja Parishad] ... the [Zilla Praja Parishad], as the case may be, on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Rule 2 was delivered to him. He shall give to every member of Gram Panchayat, [Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad], as the case may be, the notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting of such meeting in Form-IV, or in Form-V or in Form-VI annexed to these rules either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, whichever is applicable."

(emphasis added)

As per the above extracted Rules, the Ward Members have to

submit the Form-I notice along with the letter of the proposed motion

of no-confidence to the RDO concerned, based on which, the RDO

can take further steps by issuing the Form-IV notice. But, in this

case, as seen from the record, immediately after receipt of the

proposed no-confidence motion, without there being any Form-I

notice, the RDO has issued the Form-IV notice.

A learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.19060 and

21746 of 2008, dated 29.10.2008, has held as under:

"12. Various steps prescribed by the principal or subordinate legislature, be it in relation to election of

representatives for the statutory or local bodies, or matters relating thereto, need strict compliance. For instance, not only the manner in which the elections must be held, but also meticulous details to be followed in the process of voting, counting, etc, are stipulated, under the relevant provisions. Any deviation there from, which had the effect of diluting the mandate, would nullify the election process. Section 245 of the Act and the Rules are akin to election process, may be in the reverse direction. Compared to the procedure prescribed for election, the one stipulated for dislodging an elected representative must be complied in a more meticulous manner. This is in addition to the well established principle that where law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be in that manner, or not at all."

For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the ratio laid down

by this Court in the above referred judgment, the issuance of

Form-IV notice by the RDO concerned without submission of any

Form-I notice as mandated under Rules 2 and 3 enunciated under

G.O. Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998, is not

only arbitrary, bad and illegal, but also one without jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the

Form-IV notice dated 18.05.2021 issued by respondent No.4.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J 14.10.2022 sur