K. SARATH
Gutta Uma Devi, w/o. G. Premchander Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal-Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are questioning the notices of No-Confidence Motions received by them, who are holding the posts of Presidents/Vice President(s) of Mandal Praja Parishads of their respective Mandals. All the petitioners have received notices for No Confidence Motion in Form-V and questioning the issuance of Form-V notices by the respective Revenue Divisional Officers on the ground that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the prescribed authority to issue Form-V Notice as per Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. In view of the same, all these matters have been taken up for hearing and a common order is being passed in all these petitions.
2. Heard Sri C.Raghu, Sri Hemandranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsels, Sri Pasham Mohith, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Sri Banda Prasad Rao and Sri Sathwik Makunur, Sri Mahesh Mamindla Sri Sannapaneni Lohith, Sri Karanam Rajesh Kumar, Sri V.Raja Shekar Reddy, Sri Lingampally Ravinder, and Sri Mohd.Rahail Ahmed, representing M/s. Gix Law Firm, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in their respective petitions and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for learned Additonal AdvocateG
Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. N.R.Vairamani
Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr., etc. vs. Karam Chand Thapar, etc.
Chief Inspector of Mines and another Vs., Lala Karam Chand Thappar and others
Dodda Prveen Reddy Vs. Government of Telangana
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Guranm Kuar
State of Punjab Vs. Harnek Singh
Tata Teleservices Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Hyderabad and others
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 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.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 'Motion of No Confidence' must fulfill the mandatory requirements set out in Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, a....
A no-confidence motion against a municipal Vice-Chairperson is valid without the necessity of specific reasons in the resolution, and adherence to statutory notice requirements fulfills procedural ju....
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.