Quorum is essential for a no-confidence motion in local governance; lack of quorum renders a vote null.

1. The facts relating to Writ Petition No. 21223 of 1997 fall in narrow compass, which may be stated briefly as follows:

2. The petitioner was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District in the election held on 18-3-1995. The motion of no - confidence against the petitioner was presented to the third respondent on 11-8-1997 signed by 8 members of Mandal Parishad which consisted of 11 members. The 2nd respondent (District Collector, Guntur) convened a meeting of Mandal Parishad on 2-9-1997 to consider the said motion of no - confidence in accordance with S.245 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Sub-section (2) of S.245 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') contemplates that if a motion is carried with the support of 2/3rds of total number of Members against the Mandal Praja Parishad President, the Government shall by notification remove him from office. In this case, the total strength of the Mandal Praja Parishad members was 11 and 2/3rds thereof would be 7.33. Under explanation to R.6 of the Rules relating to motion of no - confidence in Upa - Sarpanch of Gram panchayat or Vice - President / President of Mandal Parishad or Vice - Chairman / Chairman of Zilla Parishad under sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.245 of the Act (for short 'the Rules'), any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. Thus, for the motion to be carried, it shall have to be supported by 8 members.

2. In the meeting held on 2-9-1997, only 7 members were present and as such there was no quorum for the meeting. R.7 of the Rules postulates that if there is no quorum the meeting shall be dissolved. In spite of this specific Rule, the 3rd respondent at the instance of the 4th respondent had convened a meeting in which the no - confidence motion was put to vote and all the 7 members present voted in its favour and the 3rd respondent declared that the motion against the petitioner was carried. A copy of these proceedings was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent, who is the minister for Panchayat Raj and is politically opposed to the petitioner, is bent upon issuing the notification under sub-section (2) of S.245 of the Act for removing the petitioner. Thus, it is claimed that the action of the 3rd respondent in convening the meeting and declaring that the motion was carried is contrary to the Statute and Rules. It is asserted that there was no properly convened meeting in the eye of law. Under these circumstances, the petitioner prays for declaration and direction as stated above.

3. The 3rd respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer - filed his counter - affidavit with an averment that the action taken by him was in accordance with the statutory provisions and rules. The facts as to convening of the meeting with 7 members and motion having been carried on the basis of the votes of those 7 members and his declaration that the motion was carried are not disputed. It is stated that the 3rd respondent convened the meeting and declared the motion carried in view of the interim orders passed in W.P. M.P. No. 12447 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 10255 of 1997 under which the 'explanation' to R.2 and R.6 of the Rules was directed to be kept in abeyance. Respondent No. 3 further asserted that there was quorum for the meeting inasmuch as 2/3rds of 11 comes to '7.33' which was taken as '7'.

4. The 5th respondent - Sirigir Koteswara Rao in his counter - affidavit made various allegations with regard to the conduct of the affairs of the Mandal Praja Parishad by the petitioner by way of refuting certain allegations made in his affid