Back
A. ABHISHEK REDDY
Ragam Rama Krishna – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
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 Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that even though Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was repealed by the New Act i.e. Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (in short ‘the New Act’), yet the official respondents have issued the impugned Form-IV notice under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 th
Compliance with procedural laws in no-confidence motions under the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act is essential, though timing of notice receipt versus issuance holds significance in evaluating valid par....
The issuance of a notice for a no confidence motion must comply with statutory requirements, including accompanying resolutions; failure to show prejudice does not invalidate the process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of old rules in the absence of new rules under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, and the authority of Revenue Divisional Off....
The main legal point established is that until new rules are framed, the old rules consistent with the new Act can be followed as per the repeal and saving clauses.
The requirement of a fifteen clear days' notice for no-confidence motions is mandatory, computed from the date of dispatch, excluding both the date of dispatch and the date of the meeting.
The failure to furnish a copy of the requisition for a no-confidence motion does not invalidate the motion if it is adopted by the requisite majority, as the requirement is directory, not mandatory.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
