COMMON ORDER:

These two Writ Petitions are filed by the President and the Vice-President of Mudinepally Mandal Parishad, Krishna District for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in purporting to conduct a meeting on 6-9-2010 or any other date for expression of “want of confidence” as illegal and ultra vires the provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”) and consequently direct respondent No.1 to abide by the law and forbear from holding a meeting for expression of “want of confidence” on 6-9-2010 or any other date.

As many as 12 members of Mudinepalli Mandal Parishad moved two separate motions in Form-II under the rules governing Motion of no confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President, President of Mandal Parishad or Vice-Chairperson/Chairperson of Zilla Parishad, notified in G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD (Mandal-I), dated 28-4-1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) against the petitioners in the two Writ Petitions who are Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch respectively. Along with the letters addressed to respondent No.1, the members enclosed two motions expressing want of confidence in the petitioners. Acting on the said letters and the motions, respondent No.1 has issued notices in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules with respect to which there is no dispute. Respondent No.1 has fixed 6-9-2010 as the date of meeting for putting the motions to vote. These notices are assailed in these Writ Petitions.

This court, while ordering notice before admission in both the writ petitions, permitted the meeting to go on but directed that no further steps shall be taken pending further orders.

Separate counter affidavits have been filed along with the vacate stay applications by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada Division and respondent Nos.2 to 13.

At the hearing, Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced the only submission, namely, that the motions moved by respondent Nos.2 to 13 expressing want of confidence is not in conformity with Section 245 of the Act. According the learned Senior Counsel, the provisions of Section 245 of the Act envisage “motion of no confidence” and not “motion expressing want of confidence”. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on Rules 2, 3 and 8 of the Rules in support of his submission, besides Section 245 of the Act.

The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to 13 respectively, opposed the above contentions and submitted that though the heading of Section 245 of the Act referred to “motion of no confidence”, the body of the said provision and the Rules referred to “want of confidence” and that therefore there is no illegality in the procedure followed by the respondents in moving the motions.

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

For better understanding of their scope, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions herein below :

Section 245:- Motion of no confidence in Upa-sarpanch, President or Chairperson: (1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Upa-sarpanch or President or Vice-President or Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson 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 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 office.

Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it