ORDER :

1. Challenging the issuance of Form-IV notice dated 15.11.2021 scheduling the meeting on 02.12.2021 for the purpose of moving the motion of no-confidence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2. When the matter came up for admission, on 30.11.2021, this Court has granted interim orders staying the Form-IV notice dated 15.11.2021 including the proposed meeting scheduled on 02.12.2021.

3. Subsequently, the Ward members have got themselves impleaded as respondents vide order dated 21.01.2022 in I.A. No. 3 of 2021.

4. Heard Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel, and Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that even though Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was repealed by the New Act i.e. Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (in short ‘the New Act’), yet the official respondents have issued the impugned Form-IV notice under Section 245 of the Old Act. Therefore, the same is not only bad, illegal, without jurisdiction, but contrary to the provisions of the New Act. Learned counsel has stated that the Form-IV notice, dated 15.11.2021, scheduling the meeting on 02.12.2021, was served on the petitioner only on 24.11.2021, thereby violating the mandatory provisions of Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No. 200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998, which stipulates that there should be a clear 15 days gap between the date of notice and the date of the scheduled meeting. It is further stated that no notice of intention to move the no-confidence motion was given by the Ward members to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) concerned along with Form-I. Therefore, the entire exercise undertaken by the RDO in going forward only on the basis of the Form-I Notice without there being any notice of intention to move the no-confidence motion against the petitioner is illegal, bad, contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel has stated that as per the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, the notice of intention to move the no-confidence motion should be given to the RDO along with Form-I and thereafter only the RDO can initiate the process by issuance of Form-IV notice. In this particular case, no such notice of intention to move the no-confidence motion was given by the Ward Members, as contemplated under Section 30 of the Act and Rule 2 of G.O. Ms.No. 200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998, was not given by the Ward members and only the Form-I was presented by the members before the RDO concerned. Therefore, the issuance of Form-IV notice by the RDO only on the basis of Form-I without the notice of intention to move the no-confidence motion does not arise. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed this Court to allow the present Writ Petition. In support his submissions, the learned counsel has relied on the unreported judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.19060 and 21746 of 2008, dated 29.10.2008.

6. Both the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents have vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the Writ Petition and contended that the requirements of law contemplated under Rules 2 and 3 of the G.O. Ms. No. 200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998, are only directory in nature and not mandatory. The learned Government Pleader has stated that there is no fixed format for initiating the no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. As long as the sum and substance of the alleged motion of no-confidence can be culled out from the intention of the ward members, it would suffice and the intention of the process of no-confidence cannot be scuttled merely on the ground that the notice of no-confidence is not in the prescribed format or not presented by the Ward members. It is further stated that the pres