( 1 ) WE propose to dispose of the two Writ Appeals by this common judgment. Though the points raised in these two appeals are separate they relate to convening of the meeting in respect of the No-Confidence Motion against Dr. Nagabhushanamma, who is appellant in WA No. 1527 of 1997.

( 2 ) DR. Nagabhushanamma was the Chair-person of Nellore Zilla Parishad. A notice was issued by the District Collector, Nellore on 29-11-1997 under Section 245 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) for convening of meeting of the concerned Zilla Parishad on 18-12-1997 for considering a Motion of No Confidence against the Chairperson. The said notice was challenged in WP No. 33119 of 1997. The Zilla Panshad had 46 members out of whom 30 belonged to Telugu Desam Party (TDP for short) and 15 belonged to Congress-I party. Twenty eight members had signed notice of intention to move No-Confidence Motion. It was alleged in the writ petition that they belonged to TDP. It was further alleged that a whip was issued directing the members of the Congress-I Party to abstain themselves from attending the meeting in which the No-Confidence Motion was to be considered. The contention was that the consequence of issuance of a whip by the Congress-I Party was that the members of that party could not have participated in the meeting held for considering No-Confidence Motion and if any person violated the whip, he would cease to hold the office of Member forthwith in view of the provisions of the Act and his vote would become invalid and would have to be discounted for the purpose of No-Confidence Motion. This being the position, the No-Confidence Motion cannot be passed at all against the Chair-person in the facts and circumstances because the Motion has to be carried with support of not less than two third of the total members.

( 3 ) IT was argued before the learned single Judge that once a whip is issued, the consequence was that the persons, who violates the whip would stand disqualified immediately and the votes if any cast by them would become invalid ab initio. The votes will have to be ignored. Such argument has been advanced on basis of a decision given by the learned single Judge of this Court in M. V. Rao v. Election Tribunal-Cum-Sub-Judge, 1997 (5) ALD 57, (i. e. By Justice T. N. C. Rangarajan ). However, the learned single Judge before whom the writ petition came up dismissed the writ petition and distinguished the ratio laid down in the M. V. Rao s case (supra ).

( 4 ) AS far as WA No. 1462 of 1997 is concerned, the point raised in the writ petition before the learned single Judge was that though a notice of No-Confidence Motion was given; according to the rules framed under the Act, by 28 persons, no reasons were given in the notice for moving the No-Confidence Motion. It was contended that though there is no express provision in the Act that reasons for initiating No-Confidence Motion have to be given in the notice, it is inherent in the scheme of things that reasons for moving the No-Confidence Motion should be incorporated in the notice. If reasons are not given, the whole provision regarding consideration of No-Confidence Motion becomes arbitrary and violative of the constitutional provisions under Articles 14 and 19. Interim orders were sought, to stay the holding of the meeting of consideration of No-Confidence Motion of the President of Zilla Parishad, Nellore. Interim stay was granted but later on it was vacated by the learned single Judge on application for vacating the interim direction. This wnt petition was filed by a member of the Zilla Parishad in which Nagabhushanamma was made a respondent. Aggneved by the vacation of the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed.

( 5 ) IT may be stated that as a result of vacation of the stay order, the meeting was held in which a No-Confidence Motion was passed. As per directions of this Court the Minutes of the proceedings ha