M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THE appellant (hereinafter referred as "the petitioner") was elected as the President of the Mandal Parishad, Prathipadu, constituting of 12 members. 8 out of the 12 members moved a motion for want of confidence in the President before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, on 7-11-1998. As a consequence of that, a notice was issued to the members for the proposed vote of no-confidence. The notice was issued on 9-11-1998 for the meeting to be held on 1 -12-1998 at 11. 00 a. m. The sole contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the notice in Form-V did not have the copy of the proposed motion of no confidence in Form-11 as the true copy, inasmuch as it did not contain the names or signatures of the persons, who delivered the notice of no-confidence in Form-11 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, the vote of no-confidence cannot be sustained.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that certain procedure is prescribed under the rules framed by the Government vide GO Ms. No. 200, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mandal-I) dated 28/04/1998 relating to the Motion of No-Confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/president of Mandal Parishad or Vice Chairman/chairman of Zilla Parishad. Rule 2 provides that a notice of intention to make a motion would be made in Form-1, in Form-II and in Form-Ill annexed to the Rules. Such a notice would be signed by not less than one half of the total members of the Mandal Parishad and it shall be delivered in person by any of the two members who signed such notice to (he Revenue Divisional Officer. These are the twin essentials as provided by Rule 2. On receipt of such notice, it was enjoined upon the Revenue Divisional Officer to convene and preside over a meeting for consideration of the motion on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which notice under Rule 2 was delivered to him. it was further made incumbent that the officer would serve a notice of not less than 15 clear days excluding the date of notice and the date of proposed meeting in Form-4, or Form-V or Form-VI annexed to the Rules to each of the members of the Mandal Parishad. The notice was required to be served either by giving or tendering as the case may be and if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known address or tendering to some adult member of the family of the said member or servant of his family so on and so forth. Hie rest of the rules are not relevant. The text of the prescribed notice in Form-V should be that a notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence has been made and delivered to the authorised officer under sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and that a meeting of the Mandal Parishad shall be held at the office of the Mandal Parishad on the date and time fixed for considering the said motion. The Form further prescribes that a copy of the proposed motion of No-Confidence is to be enclosed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copy accompanied with the Form-V notice is not a copy at all of Form-II prescribed for presenting to the Revenue Divisional Officer and consequently, the vote of no-confidence is invalid.

( 4 ) JURISPRUDENTIALLY, it is well established that in an election, the right of the elected person is neither a fundamental right nor an equitable right. It is a statutory right and can be exercised or taken away strictly in terms of the statute.

( 5 ) STATUTORY rules provide, as we have produced above, the use of Form-I or Form-II for presenting a notice for moving the motion of no-confidence, which in the facts of the present case, was in fact made. We have perused the record also. The notice proposing the vote of no-confidence does contain the signatures of eight persons, who are accordingly more than half of the members of the Mandal Parishad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document