SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 45081

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
,
Bhimagani Sowjanya – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.No.14470 of 2022 | W.P.No.2516 of 2023 | WA No.474 of 2022 | SLP No.21634 of 2022 | W.A.No.38 of 2024 | WA No.792 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri C.Raghu, Sri Hemandranath Reddy, Sri Pasham Mohith, Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, Sri Banda Prasad Rao, Sri Sathwik Makunur, Sri Mahesh Mamindla, Sri Sannapaneni Lohith, Sri Karanam Rajesh Kumar, Sri V.Raja Shekar Reddy, Sri Lingampally Ravinder, Sri Mohd.Rahail Ahmed
For the Respondents: Sri S.Rahul Reddy, Sri Sripada Prabhakar, Sri A.Venkatesh, 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, Sri Usakoyeela Chandra Shekar, Sri Gunna Raghu Chandra

The court held that until new rules are framed under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, the old rules for no-confidence motions remain applicable, and Revenue Divisional Officers lack authority to issue notices under the new Act.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Section 263 - No Confidence Motions - Petitioners, Presidents/Vice Presidents of Mandal Praja Parishads, challenge issuance of Form-V notices by Revenue Divisional Officers, asserting lack of authority under the Act. Court finds that old rules apply until new ones are framed. (Paras 1-31)

(B) Authority - Court emphasizes that the prescribed authority must be defined by rules, which have not yet been framed under the new Act. (Paras 3, 7, 17)

(C) Jurisdiction - Revenue Divisional Officers lack jurisdiction to issue notices under the old Act’s provisions post-repeal. (Paras 17-19)

(D) Majority Support - Elected officials must maintain majority support; technicalities cannot prevent no-confidence motions. (Paras 26-30) (E) Verification of Signatures - Court finds no mandatory requirement for verifying signatures before issuing notices. (Paras 28-29) (F)

Result: Writ petitions dismissed; Revenue Divisional Officers directed to proceed with no-confidence motions.

Table of Content
1. petitioners challenge issuance of no-confidence motions. (Para 1)
2. arguments against the authority and procedure for no-confidence motions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. need for prescribed authority and verification of signatures. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. government's obligation to define authority for no-confidence motions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. old rules applicable until new rules are framed. (Para 14 , 15)
6. court's analysis of law and application of old rules. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. judgments regarding applicability of old rules. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. court's reasoning on democratic principles in governance. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
9. court's decision on procedural validity of no-confidence motions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
10. petitioners' attempts to stall proceedings on technical grounds. (Para 30)
11. writ petitions dismissed; meeting for no-confidence motion ordered. (Para 31)

COMMON 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top