Telangana High Court
Purelli Jaipal Reddy vs State Of Telangana And 9 Others on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
W.A.No.45 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant; Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned Government Pleader
for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development representing
respondents No.1 to 3; and Mr. G.Narender Reddy, learned
counsel for respondents No.4 to 10.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.12.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.26440
of 2021 filed by the appellant as the petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition questioning the
Form-IV notice dated 14.10.2021 issued by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District i.e.,
respondent No.3 proposing to conduct No-Confidence Motion
meeting against the appellant on 06.11.2021.
::2::
4. Be it stated that appellant was elected as a member of
Kolthur Gram Panchayat in the year 2019. The said Gram
Panchayat has twelve ward members, who amongst themselves had
elected the appellant as Upa Sarpanch.
5. It appears that seven ward members i.e., respondents No.4
to 10 had declared 'No-Confidence' against the appellant and had
sent a requisition to respondent No.3, who, in turn, issued
Form-IV notice on 14.10.2021 proposing to hold a No-Confidence
Motion meeting under Section 30(1) and (2) of Telangana
Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter). This came
to be challenged by the appellant in the related writ petition by
contending that neither Form-I notice nor copy of the resolution
expressing 'No-Confidence' was enclosed to the Form-IV notice.
On 10.11.2021, a learned Single Judge of this Court had granted
interim stay.
6. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on behalf
of the State that out of the twelve elected ward members, seven
members had submitted Form-I notice on 11.10.2021 against the
::3::
appellant. Therefore, respondent No.3 had signed the proposal for
holding No-Confidence Motion meeting. While doing so,
respondent No.3 had verified the genuineness of the proposal
initiated by the seven ward members whereafter Form-IV notices
were issued on 14.10.2021 fixing 06.11.2021 as the date for holding
the meeting to discuss No-Confidence Motion against the
appellant. The said notices were served upon all the elected
members on 14.10.2021 itself including the appellant. Thus, fifteen
clear days' notice was given. In terms of G.O.Ms.No.200
dated 28.04.2002, it was not necessary to disclose the reasons of
No-Confidence Motion. In the meeting held on 06.11.2021, a total
of seven ward members attended which was more than half of the
total ward members. They unanimously voted expressing No-
Confidence against the Upa Sarpanch i.e., the appellant. Thereafter,
resolution of the meeting of No-Confidence Motion was submitted
to the District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (respondent
No.2) who issued proceedings dated 09.11.2021 under
Section 30(2) of the Act removing the appellant from the office of
::4::
Upa Sarpanch. However, in view of the interim stay granted by the
learned Single Judge, no further steps were taken.
7. Learned Single Judge noted that grievance of the appellant
was that while submitting Form-I notice (requisition) to respondent
No.3, reasons for such No-Confidence Motion were not enclosed.
Learned Single Judge was not impressed with such contention and
took the view that a democratic process cannot be stalled on
technicalities. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
8. In the hearing today, learned Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj has placed before us a copy of the notification
dated 07.01.2023 issued by the District Collector for Medchal-
Malkajgiri District (respondent No.2) which reads as under:
1. Whereas, a motion expressing no confidence against
Sri P.Jaipal Reddy, Upa-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kolthur of
Muduchintalapally Mandal was moved under Section 30 of
Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018
2. And whereas, a special meeting for the purpose of considering
the above motion was held on 06.11.2021 at 11.00 AM in the
office of the Gram Panchayat Kolthur of Muduchintalapally
Mandal in the presence of Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara.
::5::
3. And whereas, the said motion was put to vote, the total
members in the Gram Panchayat are (12+Sarpanch) out of
which (7) ward members have attended the said meeting and it
was passed with requisite (one half of the total members)
majority as reported by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Keesara.
4. Now therefore, in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court vide reference 3rd read above and in exercise of the
powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of the Section 30 of
Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, Sri P.Jaipal Reddy, Upa-
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kolthur of Muduchintalapally
Mandal is hereby removed from the post of Upa-Sarpanch of
Kolthur Gram Panchayat of Muduchintalapally Mandal of
Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
9. In M.Surender v. State of Telangana1, we had taken the
following view:
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
W.A.No.627 of 2022 dt.23.09.2022
::6::
had only conveyed the sentiments of the majority members
by issuing the notice which is nothing but consequential.
We are therefore of the view that on the basis of
technicalities, an elected representative cannot evade the
test to determine as to whether he enjoys majority support
or whether he should continue in office
10. Following the above, in I.Rajanna v. State of Telangana2,
this Court took the view that it is incumbent upon a person holding
an elected office to have the majority support. When a motion of
No-Confidence is moved against him, he has to face the majority
test.
11. Evidently in the present case, out of the twelve ward
members, seven have expressed their No-Confidence in the
appellant. No-Confidence Motion has been passed against the
appellant and following dismissal of the writ petition filed by him,
consequential notification has been issued by respondent No.2
on 07.01.2023.
W.A.No.792 of 2022 dt.06.12.2022
::7::
12. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
13. Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
dismissed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 09.01.2023
LUR
