Monday, 13, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Pulakaram Saidulu vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 497 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 497 Tel
Judgement Date : 31 January, 2023

Telangana High Court
Pulakaram Saidulu vs The State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2023
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji
         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.132 of 2023

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


       Heard Mr. Janardhan Goud Sunkari, learned counsel

for the appellant and Mr. Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned

Government           Pleader       for     Panchayat           Raj     &     Rural

Development Department representing the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

16.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.44532 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ

petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition seeking

the following relief:

To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.4 herein in issuing the impugned notice in Form-IV No. G/3621/2022, dt. 23.11.2022 under Section 30(1) of

the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 20l8 without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Rule 2 & 3 of GO Ms.No.200 PR & RD dt. 28.04.1998 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. Thus, appellant sought for quashing of the notice

dated 23.11.2022 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Nalgonda.

5. Matter relates to holding of meeting to discuss no

confidence motion against the appellant who was holding

the office of Upa Sarpanch in Ipparthi Gram Panchayat.

Be it stated that Ipparthi Gram Panchayat has got eight

ward members who were elected in the elections which

were held in the year 2019. Appellant was elected as ward

member from ward No.4. Subsequent to their election, the

eight ward members elected from amongst themselves the

appellant as the Upa Sarpanch of Ipparthi Gram

Panchayat. For various reasons, five members of the Gram

Panchayat expressed no confidence in the appellant,

whereafter Form-IV notice dated 23.11.2022 was issued by

the Revenue Divisional Officer which was served upon the

appellant on 25.11.2022.

6. There is a dispute as to the service of notice upon the

appellant. While according to the appellant, notice was

served on 05.12.2022, whereas according to the

respondents, notice was served on 25.11.2022.

7. Be that as it may, the meeting to discuss no

confidence motion was scheduled on 16.12.2022.

Contending that the meeting was being scheduled in

violation of having minimum fifteen days time in the

interregnum, the related writ petition came to be filed.

8. Initially, learned Single Judge passed an interim

order directing that the meeting to discuss no confidence

motion would go on but result thereof should not be

declared.

9. In the proceedings held on 16.12.2022 learned Single

Judge noticed that a total of six members out of eight

members had made the requisition to the Revenue

Divisional Officer expressing no confidence in the

appellant. Learned Single Judge took the view that when

admittedly majority of the members had expressed no

confidence in the appellant, he could not hold on to office

on a technical ground that there was no fifteen days gap in

between the receipt of notice and holding of meeting.

10. In the meeting, six out of the eight members

supported the no confidence motion. Therefore, even if the

aforesaid exercise is directed to be redone in tune with the

requirement of law, as prayed for by the appellant, the

result is a foregone conclusion.

11. That being the position, we are of the view that no

case for interference is made out.

12. Therefore, we decline to entertain the writ appeal

which is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 31.01.2023 vs

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter