The Government does not have the jurisdiction to stay the consideration of a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to convene the meeting of the Kothapalli Gram Panchayat, Andol tulak, Medak District for consideration of the no-eonfidence motion given notice of by the petitioners on 22. 8-1965.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts to understand the contentions raised before me are that both the petitioners are members of the Kothapalli Gram Panchayat. They along with four others submitted a no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch, who is the 2nd respondent, herein, before the Revenee Divisional officer. The 2nd respondent convened a meeting for the consideration of the no-confidence motion fixing the date of the meeting as 11-9-65. Before the meeting could be held, the 2nd respondent, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, filed an application to the Minister for Panchayat Raj complaiaing that out of the six members of the Gram Panchayat who signed the no-confidence motion, two members were disquali fied inasmuch as they had failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat and thus incurred disqualification under section 2 (k) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats act, 1964, hereinafter called the Act . The Minister the same day passed an order that the consideration of the no-confidence motion be stayed and that the order sho uld be communicated by wire. The meeting was accordingly stayed.

( 3 ) THE petitioners have now challenged the order of stay granted by the Minister as a consequence of which the consideration of the no-confidence motion has been stayed. The principal contention of Mr. Y. Sivarama Sastri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Government was not competent to grant stay, as a complete embargo has been put on the issue of such an order by section 51 (5) of the Act. It was on the other hand, contended by the learned government Pleader that the Government can revise the order of the Revenue Divisional officer accepting the no confidence motion as valid and directing the meeting to be held for its consideration under section 232 of the Act. In the exercise of the said revisional power under that provisio of aw, the Government can also stay the consideration of such a defective motion, contends the learned Advocate.

( 4 ) IN order to resolve those rival contentions, it is necessary to read the said sections of the Act. Section 51 relates to the motion of no-confidence in sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch. The relevant portion of the said section is as follows:" (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch may be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the following sub-sections. (2) A written notice of intention to make the motion, in such form as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one half of the total strength of the gram panchayat, together with a copy of the proposed motion shall be delivered in person by any two of the mem- bers signing the notice, to the Revenue Divisional Officer and in the absence of such officer to such officer as the District Collector may appoint in this behalf. (3) The concerned officer specified in sub-section (2) (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said officer) shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Gram Panchayat on a date appointed by him which shall not be. later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under subsection (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting in such manner as may be prescribed. Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a court, it shall be adjourned, and the said officer shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later that thrity days from the date on which he receives the intimation about the vacation of stay after giving to the members notice of not less then fifteen clear days of such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document