Telangana High Court
Sri Puramsetti Kamalakar vs The State Of Telangana on 11 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.58 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. G.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant; Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned Government Pleader for
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development representing respondents No.1
to 5; and Mr. P.Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel for
Telangana State Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and
Gram Panchayats representing respondent No.6.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order
dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
W.P.No.14401 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Matter pertains to No-Confidence Motion against the Upa
Sarpanch of Deshaipally Gram Panchayat in Veenavanka Mandal,
Karimnagar District.
4. In the elections held in the month of January, 2019, appellant
was elected as a ward member of the said Gram Panchayat. There are
::2::
altogether eight ward members of the said Gram Panchayat. The ward
members among themselves elected the appellant as the Upa
Sarpanch. In addition, there is a Sarpanch, who is directly elected. In
all, there are nine members in the Gram Panchayat.
5. Notice dated 14.03.2022 was issued by respondent No.4 i.e.,
Revenue Divisional Officer, Huzurabad scheduling a meeting to
discuss No-Confidence Motion against the appellant
on 30.03.2022. This notice came to be challenged by the appellant
before the learned Single Judge by filing the related writ petition.
6. According to the appellant, the notice dated 14.03.2022 was
issued in contravention of Rule 2 of the Rules relating to Motion of
No-Confidence against the Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat (for
short 'the Rules' hereinafter) which are a set of statutory rules framed
under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
7. As per Rule 2 of the Rules, notice of the intention to make the
motion shall be made in Form-I, Form-II and Form-III, 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 together
::3::
with a copy of the proposed motion and shall be delivered in person
by any two of the members, who signed such notice.
8. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the
impugned notice was not accompanied by copy of the proposed
motion, which is a mandatory requirement.
9. Writ petition was contested by respondent No.4 by filing
counter-affidavit. It was mentioned that on 05.03.2022, five ward
members had filed a proposal of No-Confidence Motion against the
appellant before him in Form-1; after ascertaining the genuineness of
the signatures of the ward members in Form-I and after ascertaining
the quorum for submitting proposal of No-Confidence Motion,
respondent No.4 had issued Form-IV notice on 14.03.2022 fixing
30.03.2022 as the date for holding the meeting to discuss No-
Confidence Motion against the appellant; the notice was received by
the appellant on 16.03.2022 and all the documents were served upon
him on 17.03.2022; appellant had applied under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 for supply of a copy of Form-I notice and
other documents, which were duly furnished to him.
::4::
10. It was therefore, contended that Rule 2 of the Rules were
strictly complied with. In the meeting held on 30.03.2022, five
members out of eight had expressed their No-Confidence in the
appellant as Upa Sarpanch; thus, more than 50% of the ward
members had lost their confidence in the appellant; however, because
of the interim order passed by the writ court, the results were not
declared.
11. Learned Single Judge had requisitioned the record and perused
the same. Thereafter, learned Single Judge held as follows:
The main issue for consideration in the present writ petition is
'whether the letter of proposed motion of no-confidence has been
submitted by the Ward members along with the Form-I notice as
contemplated under Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules or not?'
A perusal of the material on record, more particularly the
original record produced by the learned Government Pleader,
shows that the letter of proposed motion of no-confidence was
enclosed with the Form-I and the RDO himself has signed on both
the letters acknowledging the receipt of the same
on 05.03.2022 and also directing the MPDO, Veenavanka, to verify
the genuineness of the signatures of the ward members and submit
a report. Thereafter, the Form-IV notice was issued
on 14.03.2022 scheduling the meeting of no-confidence
::5::
on 30.03.2022. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner
has stated that the said letter of proposed motion of no-confidence
has been fabricated and brought into existence
subsequently and the said letter was not furnished to him when he
sought for the same vide Right To Information Act application
dated 16.03.2022 and therefore, it has to be necessarily held that the
said letter of proposed no-confidence motion was subsequently
brought into existence by the authorities concerned, but, a perusal
of the application dated 16.03.2022 made by the petitioner under
the RTI Act shows that the petitioner has only sought for
furnishing copies of Form-I notice and memo. The petitioner has
not specifically sought for furnishing copy of the letter of the
proposed no-confidence motion. Therefore, it cannot be held that
the letter of proposed no- confidence motion was not in existence
or that it was brought into existence subsequently and therefore
said contention urged by the petitioner is hereby negatived.
12. After referring to various judicial pronouncements of this
Court, learned Single Judge took the view that there was no merit in
the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the same.
13. Before us also, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there was contravention of Rule 2 of the Rules inasmuch as along
with Form-IV notice, the copy of proposed motion was not served
upon him. This aspect of the matter was gone into by the learned
::6::
Single Judge in great detail. We are not inclined to re-appreciate the
findings of the learned Single Judge based on materials on record.
14. This Court has held more than once that a person holding an
elected office must have the majority support. He cannot hold on to
the elected office on the strength of technicalities.
15. That being the position, we do not find any good ground to
entertain the appeal.
16. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed.
__________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 11.01.2023
LUR
