The expression of want of confidence in a motion under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, should be interpreted liberally, focusing on the substance of the expression rather than its form, and can be sufficiently conveyed through the notice and the motion when read together.

( 1 ) 1. In June 1970, the petitioner was elected Sarpanch of the gram Panchayat of Bichkunda in Nizamabad District. The normal term of the office is five years. Thirteen members constitute the strength of the Gram Panchayat.

( 2 ) IT is alleged in the petition that three members of the Gram panchayat incurred the dibqualification to hold the office in consequence of the default in the payment of property-tax. Differences of opinion arose between the President and the members who according to him were disqualified. Written notice of the intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence, purporting to be in conformity with section 51 of the Gram Panchayat Act, was said to have been delivered in person to the Revenue Divisional Officer on july 12, 19711 Along with the notice another document which purports to be a copy of the motion is also stated to have been given. Thereupon, the Sub-Collector convened a meeting of the Gram panchayat to be held on August 4, 1971.

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the third respondent viz. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bodhan, sent a report to the Sub-Collector to the effect that one of the two persons who purported to deliver the notice under Section 51, Sri Mallikharjunappa Shetakar, was disqualified from acting as a member. This report was submitted on the basis of the enquiry conducted by him. Thereupon the sub-collector appears to have formed the opinion that the preliminary requisite step for convening a meeting was not taken in accordance with law- It is the case of the petitioner that the Sub-Collector in fact handed over notices to his peon purporting to cancel the earlier notice convening the meeting. These notices were intended to be served on the members at Richkund which was at a distance of 50 miles from the headquarters of the Sub-Collector. The petitioner proceeds to state that "under the illegal directions and unlawful interference of the District Collector, Nizamabad, the notices cancelling the meeting were withdrawn".

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, yellareddy and sought an injunction to restrain the holding of the meeting that was proposed to be held on 4th August, 1971, On that very day the District Munsif granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the members of the Panchayat from moving a motion of no-confidence that was to be held. The petitioner complains that although the members, of the panchayat had knowledge that an injunction had been granted, they participated in the meeting held on 4th august 1971. A resolution as per the terms of which notice had been given under Section 51 is stated to have been passed at the meeting. The petitioner apprehends that on the strength of the resolution, the collector of Nizamabad is contemplating action for his removal from the post to which he was elected. The petitioner submits that the resolution in question is being erroneously construed by the Collector as a motion expressing want of confidence. He evers that any action by the District Collector affecting his right to hold the office would be illegal because there is no resolution of noconfidence passed in accordance with law. The petitioner therefore, seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Collector, nizamabad not to take any steps for removing him from the post of sarpanch of Bichkunda Gram Panchayat.

( 5 ) IN the affidavit of Dr. Somdev, one of the members of the Gram panchayat, a different version is given. It is stated that the copy of the motion which was intended to be made and delivered to the revenue Divisional Officer was signed by nine members of the panchayat. The notice convening the meeting, it is maintained, is valid. The meeting held on 4th August, 1971 was attended by 12 members, the only absentee being the petitioner, Eleven members voted for the motion and there was a solitary vote against it. The Revenue divisional Officer declared that the motion was carried w