Mr.Diviti Raj Das vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1035 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mr.Diviti Raj Das vs The State Of Telangana on 12 March, 2024

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

              WRIT PETITION Nos.
     19129, 19036, 19557, 20302, 22036,
33879 of 2023, 70, 153, 488, 489, 698, 713, 774,
     1548, 3802, 4093 and 4105 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are

questioning the notices of No-Confidence Motions

received by them, who are holding the posts of

Presidents/Vice President(s) of Mandal Praja Parishads

of their respective Mandals. All the petitioners have

received notices for No Confidence Motion in Form-V

and questioning the issuance of Form-V notices by the

respective Revenue Divisional Officers on the ground

that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the

prescribed authority to issue Form-V Notice as per

Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

In view of the same, all these matters have been taken

up for hearing and a common order is being passed in

all these petitions.

2. Heard Sri C.Raghu, Sri Hemandranath Reddy,

learned Senior Counsels, Sri Pasham Mohith, Sri

A.Prabhakar Rao, Sri Banda Prasad Rao and Sri Sathwik

Makunur, Sri Mahesh Mamindla Sri Sannapaneni

Lohith, Sri Karanam Rajesh Kumar, Sri V.Raja Shekar

Reddy, Sri Lingampally Ravinder, and Sri Mohd.Rahail

Ahmed, representing M/s. Gix Law Firm, learned

Counsel appearing for the petitioners in their respective

petitions and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special

Government Pleader for learned Additonal Advocate-

General, Sri Sripada Prabhakar, Sri A.Venkatesh,

Learned Senior Counsels, Sri Setty Ravi Teja, Sri

J.Ashwini Kumar, Sri Pole Vishnu, K.Srinivas, Sri

Thoom Srinivas, Sri K. Venkataramanaiah, Sri Naresh

Reddy Chinnolla, Ms. Jalapalli Madhavi Reddy, Sri

N.Naveen Kumar, Sri M.Venkateswar Rao, Ms.V.

Manjula and Sri Usakoyeela Chandra Shekar and Sri

Gunna Raghu Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for

the respondents.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the

petitioners is that in pursuance to the enactment of

Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, no new rules

have been notified and in the absence of such Rules,

Form-V issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per

G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural and

Development (for short PR&RD) dated 28.04.1998

cannot be enforced. Since Section 263 of Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 specifically provides for

prescription of procedure by way of notifying the rules,

specifically under new law and such rules must

necessarily be passed only by way of legislative

mandate. The official-respondents cannot follow the

procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.200, PR&RD,

dated 28.04.1998 issued in terms of repealed

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further

contended that the revenue authorities, without

application of mind and without verifying the

signatures of the Members, who purported to move

no-confidence motion, issued Form-V notices to the

petitioners and in one of the case the respondents have

issued Form-V notice under Old Act and the

respondents have not even followed G.O.Ms.No.200,

PR & RD, dated 28.04.1998 and in some cases along

with the Form-V notices not enclosed Form-II notice or

Notice of intention to move no confidence motion and

in some of the cases notices were issued within fifteen

days of time contrary to the old rules and the same are

liable to be set aside on the ground that Revenue

Divisional Officer is not the prescribed authority and

even otherwise without following the G.O.Ms.No.200,

PR & RD, dated 28.04.1998 issued notices to the

petitioners.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further

contended that the Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.No.14470 of 2022, considered No-Confidence

Motion for Upa-Sarpanch as per Section 30 of

Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, but not Section 263 of

the new Act. The Sections 30 and 263 are different and

distinct and in view of the same, the said Judgment

not apply to the instant cases.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further

contended that the finding given by the Single Bench of

this Court in W.P.No.2516 of 2023 and batch, is

pertaining to No Confidence Motions of the

Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons in the respective

Municipal Councils in Telangana State. The Rules in

Telangana Municipality Act, 2019 and Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 are different and distinct and

Section 37 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 is

an enabling provision for moving no confidence motion

against the Chairpersons/Vice Chairperson and in that

Section it is clearly mentioned that proposed No

Confidence Motion is to be submitted to the respective

District Collectors.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further

contended that the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act,

2018 has repealed the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act,

1994 and revamped the entire law thereof. The Section

263 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 deals with motion

of No Confidence Motion shall be made against the

President or Vice-President of a Mandal Praja Parishad

and a motion expressing want of confidence in the

President or Vice-President may be made by giving a

written notice of intention signed by not less than half

of the total number of members of Mandal Praja

Parishad in such form and to such authority as may be

prescribed and further action on such notice shall be

taken in accordance with the procedure as may be

prescribed. The Section 2(31) of the said Act deals the

word "prescribed" as "prescribed by the Government by

rules made under this Act". So far, the Government

has not made any rules under the Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and not prescribed the

authority to whom motion expressing want of

confidence shall be given in terms of the Section 263

and therefore the Revenue Divisional Officer is not a

prescribed authority and has no authority whatsoever

to either accept the notice of intention purported to be

signed to move No Confidence Motion against the

petitioners nor to issue a notice convening a meeting to

consider the said motion of no confidence.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further

contended that the Government is bound by law to

prescribe an authority competent to exercise powers

under Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act,

2018 and without prescribing any authority, such

substantive powers cannot be inferred to be conferred

upon the Revenue Divisional Officers, who used to

exercise such powers under G.O.Ms.No. 200,

PR & RD, dated 28.04.1998 issued in terms of repealed

Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further

contended that the competent authority is duty bound

to verify the signatures of the members who have

signed the notice of intention to move no-confidence,

as otherwise it would lead to miscarriage of justice and

causes much prejudice to the person against whom

No-Confidence Motion is proposed to be moved. After

proper verification of signatures of members who have

signed the notice expressing want of confidence only

the competent authority should issue the notice for

convening a meeting to consider the no confidence

motion and in some cases without applying mind and

without verifying the signatures of the Members who

purported to have signed the Form-II notices had

mechanically issued Form-V notices intimating

convening of a meeting to consider motion of no

confidence against the petitioners and requested to

allow the wit petitions.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of

their contentions, relied on the following Judgments:

1. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. N.R.Vairamani 1

2. Sonraj Vs. Ramkishroe and another 2

3. Tata Teleservices Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Hyderabad and others 3

4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Guranm Kuar 4

11. The learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for Additional Advocate-General contended

that the petitioners are bound to prove the majority

since they have lost confidence of majority of MPTC

Members which is the object of the Act, otherwise the

purpose of democratic set up and the privilege of no

confidence motion given to the MPTC members under

Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018

will be hopelessly frustrated.

12. The learned Special Government Pleader further

contended that though the Telangana Panchayat Raj

2004 (8) SCC 579

SCC ONLINE Raj 52

(2009) 0 Supreme (AP) 29

1989 (1) SCC 101

Act, 1994 was repealed, under sub-Sections 2 and 3

of Section 295 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018,

the Legislature made it clear that under the provisions

of Section 8 and 18 of Telangana General Clauses Act,

1891 shall apply provided that on such repeal rules

and provisions are consisting with the new Act, besides

the fact that notwithstanding the repeal of Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 any appointment, notification,

order, scheme, rule, form Notice or bye-law made or

issued, and any license or permission granted under

the Act shall in so far as it is not inconsistent with the

provisions of the Act continue in force and be deemed

to have been made, issued or granted under the

provisions of the Act, unless it is superseded by any

appointment, notification, order, scheme, rules, form,

notice or bye-law made or issued and any licenses or

permissions granted under the said provisions. The

objections raised by the petitioners are not

maintainable and requested to dismiss all the writ

petitions.

13. Learned Special Government Pleader, in support

of his contentions, relied on the following Judgments:

1. Kethireddy Jeevan Reddy Gaddam Vs. The State of Telagana and others 5

2. Kethireddy Jeevan Reddy Gaddam Vs. The State of Telagana and others 6

3. Kethireddy Jeevan Reddy Gaddam Vs. The State of Telagana and others 7

4. Manjula Ramesh Chigullapalli Vs. State of Telangana and batch 8

5. Reshma Reddy Vs. Dandem Mahipal Reddy, and batch 9

6. L.Rajanna Vs. State of Telangana 10

7. K.Sujatha Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr 11

8. V.Surender Vs. State of Telangana 12

Unreported Judgment in WP No.14470 of 2022 Of High Court for the State of Telangana Dated: 06.07-2022

Of High Court for the State of Telangana Dated:11.08-2022

Order in SLP No.21634 of 2022 of Hon'ble Supreme Court Dated:02.12.2022

Common Order in WP 2516 of 2023 and batch of High Court for the State of Telangana dated 06.10.2023

Common Judgment in W.A.No.38 of 2024 and batch Of High Court of the State of Telangana Dated 31.01.2024

Judgment in WA No.792 of 2022 of High Court Of Telangana dated 06.12.2022

2004 (2) APLJ 330 (HC)

Common Judgement in WA No.627 of 2022 and WP No.35537 of 2022 of High Court for the

14. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents

contended that the unofficial respondents were elected

as MPTCs in the year, 2019 and majority of MPTCs in

their respective Mandals have moved the No

Confidence Motions against the petitioners and the

rules made under the G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD, dated

28.04.1998 are applicable till rules are framed under

the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. The purpose

and object of Form-V notice is only to give due

intimation to the members or information of the

proposed meeting for No Confidence Motion and mere

non-supplying of Form-II and letter of intention to

move No Confidence along with Form-V is not a valid

ground to set aside the proceedings of No Confidence

Motion as per Judgments of this Court. The procedure

adopted by the Revenue Divisional Officers in issuing

Form-V is valid and legal as per G.O.Ms.No.200, PR &

RD, dated 28.04.1998 and the same shall be

State of Telangana dated 23.09.2022

continued in force until a new procedure is

contemplated by the legislature in consonance with the

Telangana Panchayath Raj Act, 2018.

15. The learned Counsel for the un-official

respondents further contended that this court on

various instances while interpreting the provisions of

Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and the Telangana

Municipalities Act, 2019 in the context of no

confidence motions moved against the

Upa-Sarpanches, Municipal Council Chairpersons/

Vice-Chairpersons and held that where new rules are

not framed under the new Act, the rules made under

the old Act are applicable in view of repeal and saving

clauses. As per the fundamental principle governing

Panchayat as well as Municipalities, a person cannot

hold the office without having majority support and

requested to dismiss the writ petitions.

16. Learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents, in

support of their contentions, relied on the following

Judgments:

1. Chief Inspector of Mines and another Vs., Lala Karam Chand Thappar and others 13

2. Poonjabhai Vanmalidas Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad 14

3. State of Punjab Vs. Harnek Singh 15

4. Dodda Prveen Reddy Vs. Government of Telangana 16

5. Brihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Janardhan Ramchandra Kulkarni and others 17

6. Tirparthi Chandra Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr 18

7. Borlakunta Divisional Officer, Karimnagr District and others Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagital and others 19

17. After hearing both sides and on perusing the

record this Court is of the considered view that the

main contention of the petitioners is after coming into

force of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, no new

Rules are framed to move No Confidence Motion and

1962 (1) SCR 9

1992 Supp (1) SCC 182

2002 (3) SCC 481

2004 0 Supreme (AP) 684

1960(3) SC 85

(1998) 1 ALD 431

(2006) 6 ALD 402

in the instant cases the respondents-authorities

taking into account of the G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD,

dated 28.04.1998, which was issued as per Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Revenue Divisional

Officer has no power and jurisdiction to issue Form-V

notices for No Confidence Motion against the

petitioners. The petitioners are contending that as per

Section 263 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 the

prescribed authority has to be defined by the

Government by issuing rules in consonance with the

new Act, 2018 and the Revenue Divisional Officers are

not competent authorities for receiving and issuance of

notices for No Confidence Motion and issuing Form-V

Notices as per old rules is not valid and they are not

prescribed authorities as per Section 263 of Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

18. Further contention of the petitioners is that the

No Confidence Motion of Upa-Sarpanch deals with

Section 30 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and No

Confidence Motion of Presidents/Vice Presidents of

Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads deals with

Section 263 of the same Act and in view of the same

the Judgments passed by the Single Judge and

Division Bench of this Court relating to No Confidence

Motion of Upa-Sarpanch are not applicable to the

instant cases.

19. As no new rules are issued in consonance with

the new Act, it is necessary to compare the provisions

relating to No Confidence Motion in the Old Act and

new Act, which are as follows:

The Section 245 of repealed Panchayat Raj

Act, 1994 reads as under:

Motion of no confidence in Upa-Sarpanch, President or Chairman:--

(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Upa-Sarpanch or President or Vice-President or Chairman or Vice-Chairman may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion in such form and to such authority as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad, or

as the case may be the Zilla Parishad and further action on such notice shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed:

Provided that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within two years of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved:

Provided further that no such notice shall be made against the same person more than once during his term of his office:

Explanation:-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of this section the expression "total number of members" means, all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned inclusive of the Sarpanch, President or Chairman but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members at the time of meeting:

Provided that a suspended office-bearer or member shall also be taken into consideration for computing the total number of members and he shall also be entitled to vote in a meeting held under this section.

The Section 30 of Telangana Panchayat Raj

Act, 2018 for Motion of No-Confidence-

Upa Sarpanch, reads as follows:

(1) A motion expressing want of Confidence in the Upa-Sarpanch, may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion in such form and to such authority as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one half of the total number of Members of Gram Panchayat, and further action on such notice shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

Provided that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within two years of the date of assumption of office by Upa-Sarpanch:

Provided further that no such notice shall be made against the same Upa-Sarpanch more than twice during his term of office and the second no-confidence motion shall not be initiated before the expiry of two years from the date of first no-confidence motion. Explanation :- For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of this section the expression 'total number of members' means, all the members who are entitled to vote irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members at the time of meeting:

Provided that a suspended office bearer or member shall also be taken into consideration for computing the total number of members and he shall also be entitled to vote in a meeting held under this section.

The Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat

Raj Act, 2018 reads as follows:

Motion of no-confidence in President or Chairperson. -(l) A motion expressing want of confidence in the President or Vice-President or Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson may be made by giving a written notice be of intention to move the motion in such form and to such authority, as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of Mandal Praja Parishad or as the ca may be the Zulia Praja Parishad and further ton of such notice shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

Provided that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within four years of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved;

Provided further that no such notice shall be made against the same person more than once during his term of office.

Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of this section the expression total number of members means, all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned inclusive of the President or Chairperson but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members at the time of meeting:

Provided that a suspended office bearer or member shall also be taken into consideration for computing the total number of members and he shall also be entitled to vote in a meeting held under this section.

The Section 245 of old Panchayat Raj Act deals

with No Confidence Motion of Upa Sarpanches,

Presidents/ Vice Presidents of Mandal Parishads and

Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zilla Parishads. In

the new Act, Section 30 deals with Upa Sarpanches,

and Section 263 deals with Presidents/Vice Presidents

of Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads. In both the

old Act and new Act it is mentioned that No Confidence

Motion has to be moved by giving written notice of

intention to move in such Form and to such authority,

as may be prescribed. In both the old Act and the new

Act it is mentioned as prescribed authority has to issue

notice of No Confidence Motion, but only the difference

is, in the Section 30 it continued to move No

Confidence Motion after two years, in Section 263 it

was changed as Four years instead of two years.

Moreover, the matters relating to Upa-Sarpanch

also the point for consideration was, whether without

issuing of new rules, the G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD,

dated 28.04.1008 is applicable or not and this Court

categorically held that rules made in G.O.Ms.No.200,

PR & RD dated 28.04.1998 are applicable for No

Confidence Motion of Upa-Sarpanches and the same

was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kethireddy Jeevan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

(supra 7).

20. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the

respondents contends that the rules issued in

G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD dated 28.04.1998 are

applicable to the new Act also in view of Section 295 of

Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 as there are repeal

and saving clauses. If no new rules are issued, the old

rules are applicable till the new rules are issued which

are not inconsistence with the new Act.

The Section 295 of Telangana Panchayat Raj

Act, 2018 reads as follows:

295. Repeal and Saving (1) The Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is hereby repealed.

(2) On such repeal the provisions of sections 8 and 18 of the Telangana General Clauses Act, 1891 shall apply, provided that on such repeal rules or provisions existing are not inconsistent with this Act.

(3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or bye-law made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the Act shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act continue in force and be deemed to have been made, issued or granted, under the provisions of this Act, unless it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or bye-law made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the said provisions.

In the above Section, it is clearly mentioned that

even after repealing of old Act, Sections 8 and 18 of the

Telangana General Clauses Act, 1891 shall apply and

until new rules are issued old rules will continue which

are not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act.

Therefore, the contention raised by the respondents is

valid. If there are no rules, the old rules which are not

inconsistent with the old Act are applicable as per

Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

21. The other contention raised by the learned

Counsel for the petitioners is that the Judgments

rendered by this Court in Manjula Ramesh

Chigullapally Vs. State of Telangana and batch

(supra) and batch, which was confirmed by this

Court in Reshma Reddy Vs. Dandem Mahipal Reddy

and batch (supra 9) deals with No Confidence Motion

of Chairpersons/Vice-Chairpersons under

Municipalities Act, 2019 and as per Section 37 of the

Municipalities Act, there is a specific mention that the

District Collector is the prescribed authority and in the

instant cases there is no mention that the Revenue

Divisional Officer is the prescribed authority and as per

Section 2 (31) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, the

prescribed authority is to be notified by the

Government by issuing Rules in the new Act.

In fact, the point for consideration in the above

Judgments was whether the old rules are applicable

where there are no rules framed and the Single Judge

and the Division Bench of this Court in the above

Judgements categorically held that if there are no

rules, the old rules apply for moving No Confidence

Motion in view of repeal and saving clauses in the

Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 while considering

the Sections 8 and 18 of the Telangana General

Clauses Act, 1891.

22. In the instant cases also, there are no rules under

the new Act and there is existence of repeal and saving

clauses. Therefore, the old rules which are in

consonance with the new Act apply for moving No

Confidence Motion under Telangana Panchayath Raj

Act, 2018.

23. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel

for the petitioners are not apply to the instant cases

on facts and law and this Court not passing these

orders as a covered order and passing orders

independently basing on the facts and law and on

merits of each case.

24. The following Judgments, relied on by the

learned Counsel for the respondents squarely apply to

the instant cases.

25. In State of Punjab Vs. Harnek Singh (supra

15), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"22. There is no dispute that when an Act is repealed but re-enacted, it is almost inevitable that there will be some time lag between the re- enacted statute coming into force and regulations being framed under the re-enacted statute. In Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr., etc. vs. Karam Chand Thapar, etc. [AIR 1961 SC 838] this Court observed that:

"However, efficient the rule-making authority may be it is impossible to avoid some hiatus between the coming into force of the re-enacted statute and the simultaneous repeal of the old Act and the making of regulations. Often, the time lag would be considerable. It is conceivable that any legislature, in providing that regulations made under its statute will have effect as if enacted in the Act, could have intended by those words to say that if ever the Act is repealed and re- enacted, (as is more than likely to happen sooner or later), the regulations will have no existence for the purpose of the re- enacted statute, and thus the re-enacted statute, for some time at least, will be in many respects, a dead letter. The answer must be in the negative. Whatever the purpose be which induced the draftsmen to adopt this legislative form as regards the rules and regulations that they will have effect "as

if enacted in the Act", it will be strange indeed if the result of the language used, be that by becoming part of the Act, they would stand repealed, when the Act is repealed. One can be certain that that could not have been the intention of the legislature. It is satisfactory that the words used do not produce that result."

In the above Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme

Court categorically held that, as stop gap

arrangements, till new rules are framed, the old rules

with consistency to the new Act can be followed. The

learned Counsel for the respondents rightly contended

that the rules made in G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD, dated

28.04.1998 are applicable to the new Act as per

Section 295 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 as

no new rules are framed as on this date.

26. The Division Bench of this Court in V.Surender

Vs. State of Telangana (supra 12), held as follows:

"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 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"

In Tirparthi Chandra Vs. Government of

Andhra Pradesh, (supra 18), this Court held as

follows:

18. In all the representative democratic Institution under the Constitution, which include Panchayat Raj Institutions, the continuance of the persons in the Executive officers depending on their continuing enjoyment of the support of the body which elected them to the particular office. To hold, otherwise would be a mockery of the representative form of democracy"

In the above Judgments, this Court held that the

elected representative cannot continue to hold the post

on technical grounds and in the instant cases also the

petitioners questioning the procedure adopted by the

Revenue Divisional Officers as the same was pertaining

to old rules and quoting old Act in the notices. The

said contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted

as the petitioners without facing No Confidence Motion,

they cannot be continued in their respective posts on

the ground of no rules are framed for moving No

Confidence Motion as per Section 263 of Telangana

Panchayat Raj Act, 2019.

27. The contention raised by the petitioners is that

some of them have received notices in Form-V for

holding meeting for No Confidence Motion within

fifteen days and the same is contrary to

G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD dated 28.04.1998. In fact,

the issue was considered by the Full Bench of this

Court in K.Sujatha Vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh (supra 11) and held that the purpose and

object of giving notice of consideration of no confidence

motion is only to give due intimation to the members or

information of the proposed meeting and non-service of

notice of fifteen clear days cannot make the meeting

and proceedings are null and void. In view of the

above settled law, the petitioners' contentions cannot

be acceptable.

28. The other contention of the petitioners that some

of them have not received Form-II notices or the Notice

of intention to move No Confidence Motion along with

Form-V. At the time of arguments the learned Special

Government Pleader produced before this Court both

Form-II and Notice of Intention to move No Confidence

Motion submitted to the concerned Revenue Divisional

Officers, but not served along with Form-V notices.

Along with Form-V notices, service of Form-II and

notice of intention to move No Confidence motion is not

mandatory as held by this Court in Rangu

Pushpalatha Vs. State of Telangana and others 20.

Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners in

this regard cannot be acceptable.

29. The other contention raised by the petitioners is

that the Revenue Divisional Officer without verifying

the signatures of the Members in the Form-II and

notice of intention to move No Confidence Motion

2023 SCC ONLINE TS 662

issued Form-V and on the ground of non-verification of

signatures of the Members in the notice of intention

to move No Confidence Motion and Form-II and the

same are liable to be set aside, but in support of their

contention, they have failed to show any

provision/Rule before this Court with regard to

compulsorily verification of signatures by the Revenue

Divisional Officer before issuing Form-V Notices. This

Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India,

cannot verify the signatures of the Members and if

any dispute is there with regard to signatures of the

Members the same has to be decided before the

appropriate authorities. In view of the same, the

contentions raised by the petitioners in this regard

cannot be acceptable.

30. Further, the petitioners on one hand contending

that the respondents cannot initiate No Confidence

Motion basing on the old rules and on the other hand

contending that the respondents have to follow the

procedure as per old rules. It is clearly shows that the

petitioners wanted to evade the No Confidence Motion

on the ground that there are no rules or otherwise the

old rules are not followed. Therefore, the petitioners

without facing No Confidence Motion wanted to stall

the proceedings on one pretext or the other and they

cannot continue in their respective posts without

facing No Confidence Motion on technical grounds as

one-half of the total number of Members of Mandal

Praja Parishads moved No Confidence Motion against

the petitioners.

31. In view of the above findings, all these writ

petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly

dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, the

respective Revenue Divisional Officers are directed to

hold the Meeting to discuss "No Confidence Motion", on

or before 02.04.2024, by serving the notices upon all

the Members in pursuance to the impugned Form-V

Notices in the respective writ petitions.

32. As a sequel, Miscellaneous applications pending,

if any, in all these writ petitions, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:12/03/2024 trr

Note:

LR Copy to be marked

Issue CC today