IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
K.Shoba and others - Petitioners
Vs.
The District Collector (Panchayat Raj Wing) Government of Telangana, Sanga Reddy District at Sanga Reddy and others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION Nos. 22616, 22640 AND 22668 OF 2021
Decided On : 18-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 - Sections 113, 114 and 37(1) and 37(5) - Motion of no confidence in Upa-Sarpanch - Availability of alternative and efficacious remedy - Distribution of amount among body members in Gram Panchayat Office shows their illegal and corrupt practices - After assuming charge as Sarpanch, 12 Unauthorised Layouts have been established Sarpanch has failed to stop these layouts and violated Section 113 of Act - Some buildings are demolished as special drive, started again - Even after several times demolition drive taken up to remove illegal floors, construction of illegal floors are still going on i.e. they took permission for G+2 from Gram Panchayat and constructing G+3, G+4 - This shows Gram Panchayat body failed to stop illegal constructions as per Section 114 of Act - Petitioner contends respect of Upa-Sarpanch, there is procedure to move No Confidence Motion in event of losing of confidence on him - Section 30 of Act, deals with procedure for moving No Confidence Motion Respondent cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 37(1) of Act, by way of issuing notices - Respondent contends as per Section 2(39) and Section 15 of Act, Sarpanch includes Upa -Sarpanch - Respondent is having power to issue show cause notice in respect of Upa-Sarpanch and also Ward Members - Nowhere in provision it is stated that Sarpanch includes Upa - Sarpach - Whether 1st Respondent is having power to issue show cause notices under Section 37(5) of Act to Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and Ward Members-
Finding of the Court:
Election of Sarpanch and Ward Members of Gram Panchayat is a direct election and election to Upa Sarpanch is indirect election - Against Upa Sarpanch, there is procedure to move No Confidence Motion - Respondent has to form an opinion by applying his mind, should be based on relevant material - Show cause notices are issued by Respondent, on perusal of material on record i.e. complaints of Respondent, villagers and report of respondent - Contention of Respondent had issued impugned show cause notice without consideration of material, without forming an independent opinion is unsustainable - Sarpanch, aggrieved by an order of removal to be passed by Respondent under Section and 37(5) of Act or by an intimation under Sub-Section 2 of Section 35 of Act, within 30 days from date of receipt of order or as case may be, to be intimated preferring an appeal to Gram Panchayat Tribunal - There is specific procedure prescribed under Act - There is alternative and efficacious remedy available to petitioner under Act - Petitioner instead of availing same, filed present writ petition.
Result: Writ Petition allowed
ORDER :
1-a) W.P.No.22616 OF 2021 is filed by the Petitioners/Ward Members of the 2nd Respondent to quash the show cause notice No 153/2021/Pts.1 to 6, dated 06.09.2021 issued by the 1st Respondent with regard to suspension of the Petitioners and to issue consequential direction to the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to continue as Ward Members till January 2024.
1-b) W.P.No.22640 of 2021 is filed by the Petitioner/Sarpanch to quash the show cause notice No.153/2021/A1/Pts.1, dated 06.09.2021 issued by the 1st Respondent with regard to removal of the Petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of the 2nd Respondent Gram Panchayat and issue consequential direction to the respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue as Sarpanch for the elected tenure.
1-c) W.P.No.22668 of 2021 is filed by the Petitioner/Upa-Sarpanch seeking to quash the show cause notice No.153/2021/A1/Pts.2, dated 06.09.2021 issued by the 1st Respondent with regard to suspension of the Petitioner from the office of Upa-Sarpanch of the 2nd Respondent Gram Panchayat and issue consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Upa-Sarpanch of the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat for the elected tenure.
2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri D.B.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 5th Respondent and Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent and perused the record.
3. FACTS OF THE CASE
(i) The 1st Respondent had issued impugned notices dated 06.09.2021 to the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and the Ward Members, the respective petitioners herein asking them to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against them in violation of Sections 113, 114 and 37(1) and 37(5) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 (for short, ‘the Act’)Act. 7 days time was given to them to submit their explanations.
(ii) The charges leveled against the Sarpanch are as follows:-
“Charge No.1:-As per CCTV footage, video & audio footage, it is observed that, the Sarpanch has distributed Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousad Only) to each ward member in between 12.30P.M. to 12.34PM on 25.03.2021. The distribution of amount among body members in the Gram Panchayat Office shows their illegal and corrupt practices.
Charge No.2: After assuming the charge as Sarpanch, 12 Unauthorised Layouts have been established in Kistareddypet of Ameenpur, the Sarpanch has failed to stop these layouts and violated the Section 113 of the Act.
Charge No.3: After assuming charge as Sarpanch, Gram Pandhayat Kistareddypet, 62 Unauthorised buildings are being constructed; the Sarpanch has failed to stop these constructions and violated the Section 114 of the Act.
Charge No.4: Some of the Buildings are demolished in the April, 2021 as special drive, started again. Even after several times demolition drive taken up to remove illegal floors, construction of illegal floors are still going on i.e. they took permission for G+2 from Gram Panchayat and constructing G+3, G+4. This shows Gram Panchayat body failed to stop the illegal constructions as per Section 114 of the Act.
Charge No.5: A.Krishna, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kistareddypet, has not cooperated with the Panchayat Secretary and Gram Panchayat Staff to stop the illegal structure and obstructed the duties of them.”
(iii) The charges leveled against the Upa-Sarpanch are as follows:-
“Charge No.1:-As per CCTV footage, video & audio footage, it is observed that the Sarpanch has distributed Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousad Only) to each ward member in between 12.30P.M. to 12.34PM on 25.03.2021. The distribution of amount among body members in the Gram Panchayat Office shows their illegal and corrupt practices.
Charge No.2: Some of the Buildings are demolished in the April, 20
D. Sathi Reddy Vs.Commissioner, Panchayat Raj A.P., Hyd.
Reserve Bank of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited
Nelson Motis v. Union of India
State of U.P. v. Dr Vijay Anand Maharaj (1963) 1 SCR 1 : AIR 1963 SC 946 : 45 ITR 414
Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
SupremeToday
Sarpanch, aggrieved by an order of removal to be passed by the 1st Respondent under Section and 37(5) of the Act or by an intimation under Sub Section 2 of Section 35 of the Act, within 30 days from ....
Quash of show cause notices - No show cause notice before proceedings - Predetermined and conclusive decision.
Point of law: It is thus well settled that writ petition should normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice. In the present case no show cause notice was even issued when t....
Removal of a Sarpanch under Section 249 requires strict adherence to natural justice principles, including provision of enquiry reports, or risk invalidation of the order.
No confidence motion applies to a nominated officiating Sarpanch under the Panchayati Raj Act, ensuring accountability in governance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch was illegal and beyond the scope of Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned notices were issued following the procedures contemplated under Section 207 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.
If Sarapnach fails to call such meeting, the Secretary of the panchayat shall forthwith make a report thereof the competent authority and thereupon the competent authority shall call a meeting of the....
Point of Law : Upa Sarpanch – No confidence notice – Two notices - proposal of no confidence motion 2nd time against the petitioner within a period of two years from the 1st proposals and the same is....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.