Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 45793
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Unnamed Judge, J
Mr. Masta Prabhakar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition | W.P.No.14470 of 2022 | W.P.No.2516 of 2023 | WA No.474 of 2022 | SLP No.21634 of 2022 | WA No.38 of 2024 | WA No.792 of 2022 | WP No.35537 of 2022
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The court affirmed that the old rules under the repealed Act continue to apply for No Confidence Motions until new rules are enacted, emphasizing the necessity of majority support for elected officials.
Headnote:(A) Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Section 263 - No Confidence Motion - Petitioners challenge the issuance of Form-V notices by Revenue Divisional Officers, claiming lack of authority under the new Act due to absence of prescribed rules - Court finds that the old rules continue to apply until new rules are enacted, allowing the No Confidence Motion to proceed. (Paras 1, 3, 17, 31)
(B) Authority - The Revenue Divisional Officer lacks authority to issue Form-V notices under Section 263 of the new Act without prescribed rules - The court emphasizes the necessity for verification of signatures before issuing notices for No Confidence Motions. (Paras 4, 9, 29)
(C) Democratic Principles - The court reiterates that elected officials must have majority support to hold office, and procedural technicalities cannot prevent the democratic process. (Paras 26, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, holding positions in Mandal Praja Parishads, received Form-V notices for No Confidence Motions issued by Revenue Divisional Officers, which they contest as lacking authority under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the old rules apply until new rules are enacted, thus allowing the No Confidence Motions to proceed.
Issues: The primary issues addressed include the authority of the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue Form-V notices and the applicability of old rules under the new Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer's issuance of notices is valid under the old rules, which remain effective until new rules are established, emphasizing the importance of majority support for elected officials.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners question no-confidence motions. (Para 1) |
| 2. contention on authority to issue form-v notices. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. distinction between sections of the panchayat raj act. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. requirement for authority to issue no confidence notices. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. verification of signatures is essential. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. government's obligation to define authority under new act. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. application of old rules until new rules are framed. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. old rules apply in absence of new rules. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. legislative intent regarding transitional rules. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. judgments confirming application of old rules. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 11. dismissal of petitions based on merits. (Para 30 , 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 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 petiti
