Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Telangana) 64

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Sarath, J.
Gutta Uma Devi, w/o. G.Premchander Reddy – Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal-Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 19129, 19036, 19557, 20302, 22036, 33879 of 2023, 70, 153, 488, 489, 698, 713, 774, 1548, 3802, 4093 and 4105 of 2024
Decided On : 12-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
FOR THE PETITIONER: SRI HEMENDRANATH REDDY
FOR THE RESPONDENT: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SRI R. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, SRt PRABHAKAR SRIPADA

IMPORTANT POINT
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 Officers to issue Form-V notices for No Confidence Motion.

Headnote:
No-Confidence Motion - Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Section 263 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Form-V notices issued by Revenue Divisional Officers under G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD, dated 28.04.1998 in light of Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. The court analyzed the absence of new rules under the new Act and the relevance of old rules until new rules are framed. The court also compared the provisions of the repealed Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 with the new Act to determine the procedure for moving a No Confidence Motion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notices of No-Confidence Motions received from Revenue Divisional Officers, arguing that the officers lacked the authority to issue Form-V notices under Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. They contended that no new rules were notified after the enactment of the new Act, and the old rules could not be enforced. The petitioners also raised concerns about the verification of signatures and the timing of the notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revenue Divisional Officers did not have the authority to issue Form-V notices for No Confidence Motion against the petitioners under the old rules. It held that the absence of new rules under the new Act necessitated the application of old rules until new rules were framed. The court also dismissed the petitioners' contentions regarding the timing of notices, non-receipt of Form-II notices, and verification of signatures.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority of Revenue Divisional Officers to issue Form-V notices for No Confidence Motion, the applicability of old rules in the absence of new rules, and the procedural requirements for moving a No Confidence Motion under the new Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, the comparison of provisions between the old and new Acts, and the applicability of old rules in the absence of new rules. It also considered the principles of democratic setup and the necessity for majority support for holding office.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, directing the Revenue Divisional Officers to hold the meetings to discuss the No Confidence Motion by serving the notices upon all the Members in pursuance to the impugned Form-V Notices.

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 AdvocateGeneral, Sri Sripada Prabhakar, Sri A.Venkatesh, Learned Senior Counsels, Sri Setty Ravi Teja, Sri J.Ashwini Kumar, Sri Pole Vishnu, K.Srinivas, Sri Thoom Srinivas, Sri K. Venkataramanaiah, Sri Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, Ms. Jalapalli Madhavi Reddy, Sri N.Naveen Kumar, Sri M.Venkateswar Rao, Ms.V. Manjula and Sri Usakoyeela Chandra Shekar and Sri Gunna Raghu Chandra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in pursuance to the enactment of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, no new rules have been notified and in the absence of such Rules, Form-V issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural and Development (for short PR&RD) dated 28.04.1998 cannot be enforced. Since Section 263 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 specifically provides for prescription of procedure by way of notifying the rules, specifically under new law and such rules must necessarily be passed only by way of legislative mandate. The official-respondents cannot follow the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.200, PR&RD, dated 28.04.1998 issued in terms of repealed Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the revenue authorities, without application of mind and without verifying the signatures of the Members, who purported to move no-confidence motion, issued Form-V notices to the petitioners and in one of the case the respondents have issued Form-V notice under Old Act and the respondents have not even followed G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD, dated 28.04.1998 and in some cases along with the Form-V notices not enclosed Form-II notice or Notice of intention to move no confidence motion and in some of the cases notices were issued within fifteen days of time contrary to the old rules and the same are liable to be set aside on the ground that Revenue Divisional Officer is not the prescribed authority and even otherwise without following the G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD, dated 28.04.1998 issued notices to the petitioners.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14470 of 2022, considered No-Confidence Motion for Upa-Sarpanch as per Section 30 of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, but not Section 263 of the new Act. The Sections 30 and 263 are different and distinct and in view of the same, the said Judgment not apply to the instant cases.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the finding given by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2516 of 2023 and batch, is pertaining to No Confidence Motions of the Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons in the respective Municipal Councils in Telangana State. The Rules in Telangana Municipality Act, 2019 and Telangana Panchaya