IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SARATH, J.
Gutta Uma Devi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana - 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
No-Confidence Motion - Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Section 263 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, holding the posts of Presidents/Vice President(s) of Mandal Praja Parishads, questioned the notices of No-Confidence Motions received by them, citing that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the prescribed authority to issue Form-V notices as per Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no power and jurisdiction to issue Form-V notices for No Confidence Motion against the petitioners as no new rules were framed under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.
Issues: The main issues were the authority to issue Form-V notices for No Confidence Motion and the applicability of old rules in the absence of new rules under the new Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that until new rules are framed, the old rules consistent with the new Act can be followed as per the repeal and saving clauses. It also emphasized that elected representatives cannot continue to hold office without majority support.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the Revenue Divisional Officers were directed to hold the meetings to discuss the No Confidence Motion by serving the notices upon all the Members.
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 Advocate-General, 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 Panchay
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs. N.R.Vairamani
Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr., etc. vs. Karam Chand Thapar
Tata Teleservices Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Hyderabad and others
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Guranm Kuar
Chief Inspector of Mines and another Vs., Lala Karam Chand Thappar and others
State of Punjab Vs. Harnek Singh
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.