Smt. Rangu Pushpalatha vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1050 Tel

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

                     WRIT PETITION NO.19407 OF 2021

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the Notice in

Form-IV dated 10.08.2021 issued by respondent No.4/Revenue Divisional

Officer, Metpally Division, Jagitial District, purportedly exercising powers

under Section 30(1) of the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for

short "the Act") basing on the alleged delivery of notice of no confidence

motion against the petitioner/Upa-Sarpanch of Jaggasagar Gram Panchayat

and to call for a meeting on 27.08.2021 at 12:30 PM for considering the said

motion of no confidence, as illegal, without complying with Rules 2 and 3 of

the Rules Relating to Motion of No-Confidence against Upa-Sarpanch of the

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

(for short "the Rules") and Section 30 of the Act and also in violation of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to set aside

the same and for other appropriate reliefs.

The case of the petitioner is that she was initially elected as a Ward

Member of Ward No.6 and thereafter elected as Upa-Sarpanch of Jaggasagar

Gram Panchayat, Metpally Mandal, Jagitial District, in the general elections

held in the month of January, 2019 and since then she has been

discharging her duties to the satisfaction of villagers and also complying

with the directions issued by the competent authorities in discharge of her

duties as Upa-Sarpanch. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.4 has

issued the impugned Notice in Form-IV dated 10.08.2021 exercising powers

under Section 30(1) of the Act along with letter dated 04.08.2021 stating

that notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in

the Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat has been delivered to him and called

for a meeting on 27.08.2021 at 12:30 PM at the office of Gram Panchayat

Jaggasagar for consideration of the said motion of no confidence without

there being any copy of notice in Form-I. The contention of the petitioner is

that the copy of motion dated 04.08.2021 allegedly delivered by the ward

members is addressed to the Sub-Collector who is not competent authority

and the same amounts to non-compliance of Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules and

therefore issuance of impugned notice is in violation of Section 30 of the Act

and the same is liable to be set aside.

This Court while admitting the writ petition on 18.08.2021, granted

interim stay of all further proceedings of Notice in Form-IV dated 18.08.2021

including the proposed meeting on 27.08.2021 at 12:30 PM.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent

No.4/Revenue Divisional Officer, Metpally Division, Jagitial District stating

that as per Rule 2 of the Rules, a notice of intention to make the motion

shall be made in Form-I signed by not less than one-half of the total number

of members of the Gram Panchayat and it shall be delivered in person by

any two 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 Gram Pachayat. In the present case, eight (8) ward members

out of the total thirteen (13) ward members of Jaggasagar Gram Panchayat

have submitted proposals of no confidence motion in prescribed format on

04.08.2021 to respondent No.4 against the petitioner expressing no

confidence and sought for conducting a meeting as they fulfilled the

required quorum. It is further stated that upon receipt of the requested

proposals of no confidence motion from the aforesaid eight (8) ward

members, respondent No.4 addressed a letter vide Letter No.K/168/2021

dated 04.08.2021 to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO),

Metpalli Mandal, Jagtial District, for verifying the genuineness of the

signatures of the ward members on the proposals of No Confidence Motion.

The MPDO in turn submitted a report vide Letter dated 06.08.2021

confirming that the signatures of the ward members were authentic and

tallied with their signatures available at the Gram Panchayat records.

Subsequent thereto, respondent No.4 has issued notices in prescribed

Form-IV to all the concerned members on 10.08.2021 fixing the date of

meeting. The Form-IV notices were forwarded to the MPDO, Metpally

Mandal, vide letter dated 10.08.2021 for serving them on all ward members

under acknowledgment. The MPDO, Metpalli Mandal, submitted a

compliance report of service of notices to all the concerned vide Letter

No.A1/113/2021 dated 11.08.2021 to respondent No.4. As per the said

letter, all the notices were served on all the members and Sarpanch

including the petitioner on 11.08.2021. Accordingly all the members of the

Gram Panchayat were informed about the meeting scheduled to the

conducted on 27.08.2021 which clearly indicates that fifteen clear days were

provided between the date of tendering notices and the date of conducting

the proposed meeting. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit that

respondent No.4 has scrupulously followed the procedure contemplated in

fixing the date of meeting and in issuing the Form-IV Notice, as such there

is no illegality or irregularity committed by him in this regard and

accordingly he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no delivery of

Form-I notice by the ward members to respondent No.4/Revenue Divisional

Officer signed by at least two members in compliance of Rule 2 of the Rules,

as such the procedure adopted by the respondents is illegal. Learned

counsel further submits that Form-I and copy of the proposed motion of no

confidence were not served on the petitioner along with Form-IV in

compliance with Rules 2 and 3 of Rules and therefore, calling for a meeting

for no confidence motion in Form-IV amounts to violation of procedure

prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.200 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, dated

28.04.1998 and also contrary to Section 30 of the Telangana State

Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and therefore, the impunged notice in Form-IV

dated 10.08.2021 is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural

Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that soon after

receipt of the proposals expressing no confidence in the petitioner signed by

majority ward members, the concerned proposal form along with signatures

signed in Form-I was sent to the office of respondent No.4/Revenue

Divisional Officer for taking further course of action. The respondent

No.4/Revenue Divisional Officer on being satisfied that the requirements

were fulfilled in Form-I in accordance with Rule 2 of the Rules has issued

the impugned Notice in Form-IV fixing the date of meeting as 27.08.2021.

Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity as the majority members have

expressed their view against the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader

contends that the petitioner having lost support of the majority ward

members has now approached this Court by raising a technical ground that

the Form-I notice has not been served along with the requisition of no

confidence motion signed by the majority members.

Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for respondent No.7, who has

been impleaded during the pendency of the writ petition, submits that along

with respondent No.7 seven other members of ward Nos.1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and

11 of Jaggasagar Gram Panchayat moved no confidence motion application

against the petitioner and considering the same the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Metapally, issued Form-IV notice dated 10.08.2021 scheduling the

no confidence motion meeting to be held at the office of Jagasagar Gram

Panchayat on 27.08.2021 at 12:30 PM. He further submits that in fact the

requisition of no confidence motion has been given to the competent

authority i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Metpally, but only due to

inadvertence it is typed as Sub-Collector, Metpally, and therefore there is no

illegality in issuing the impugned notice by respondent No.4 for conducing

no confidence motion meeting, as such prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

As per the Rules, a notice of intention to make the motion shall be

made in Form-I, in Form-11 and in Form-III 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 Parishad, or

Zilla Parishad as the case of 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

Mandal Parishad, or to the District Collector in the case of Chairperson and

Vice-Chairperson of Zilla Parishad, as the case may be.

A perusal of the record would go to show that in the present case, the

copy of proposal of no confidence motion dated 04.08.2021 has been signed

by majority members and the same was submitted on the file of the Sub-

Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate and acting on the said Form-I

notice and on the basis of the report submitted by the MPDO regarding the

genuineness of the signatures of the ward members on the proposal of no

confidence motion, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned notice in

Form-IV fixing the date of meeting of the Gram Panchayat as 27.08.2021 for

considering the said motion of no confidence. The said copy has been

served to all the ward members of the Gram Panchayat.

Further, a learned Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with

similar issue, in M. Surender vs. State of Telangana1, held at para nos.12

and 13 thereof as under :

"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

Writ Appeal No.627 of 2022

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

Following the very same judgment, a learned Division Bench of this

Court in I. Rajanna vs. State of Telangana, was also pleased to dispose of

the writ appeal on similar terms vide order 16.12.2022, by observing 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.", and directing the Revenue Divisional

Officer therein to hold meeting of the Gram Panchayat to discuss 'No

Confidence Motion'.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the constitution which

profess to be democratic and republic in character by making a detailed

provision for democratic de-centralization and self-government, and the

principle of grass-root democracy cannot be interpreted to exclude the

provision of no confidence motion in respect of Office of the Chair person of

the Panchayat, just because a notice of intention has not been enclosed to

Form-I prescribed under the Rules.

In the instance case, admittedly Form-I and Form-IV notices, as

prescribed in Rule 2 and 3 of the Rules relating to motion of no confidence

have been served on the petitioner, whereas learned Government Pleader for

respondent Nos.1 and 4, contended that along with Form-I, they have also

enclosed the proposed no confidence motion.

In these circumstances, this Court, treating the enclosure of the

proposed motion of no confidence along with Form-I is only a procedural

aspect, and it is said to be directory and not mandatory. Further, the local

body institutions must run on democratic principles, and in a democracy all

persons heading public bodies can continue if they enjoy the confidence of

the persons who comprise such bodies and in view of the fact that majority

members have already signed Form-IV, the enclosure of proposed motion of

no confidence along with Form-I is not mandatory.

In view of the fact that respondent No.4 has followed the procedure

prescribed under Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules in issuing the impugned

Form-IV Notice dated 10.08.2021 and in fixing the date of meeting, there is

no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents and the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.4 is hereby

directed to proceed further and conduct meeting to consider no confidence

motion against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of

the Act.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 02.03.2023 JSU

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

WRIT PETITION NO.19407 OF 2021

Date: 02.03.2023

JSU