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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Telangana) 45082

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Not specified, Not specified
Nareddy Dasharath Reddy – 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 | WA No.38 of 2024 | WP No.35537 of 2022 | 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 absence of new rules under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 permits the application of old rules for No-Confidence Motions, validating notices issued by Revenue Divisional Officers.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Section 263 - No-Confidence Motion - Petitioners challenged the issuance of Form-V notices for No-Confidence Motions by Revenue Divisional Officers, asserting they lacked authority under the new Act due to absence of prescribed rules. The court found that old rules under G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD, dated 28.04.1998 remain applicable until new rules are framed, thus validating the notices issued. (Paras 1-32)

(B) Authority - The court ruled that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not the prescribed authority under Section 263 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, but the absence of new rules allows for the application of old rules. (Paras 17-19)

(C) Verification of Signatures - The court held that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not required to verify signatures before issuing Form-V notices, and disputes regarding signatures must be resolved by appropriate authorities. (Paras 29-30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, Presidents/Vice Presidents of Mandal Praja Parishads, challenged Form-V notices for No-Confidence Motions issued by Revenue Divisional Officers, claiming lack of authority and procedural violations.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the validity of the Form-V notices based on the applicability of old rules, directing the Revenue Divisional Officers to hold meetings for No-Confidence Motions.

Issues: Whether the Revenue Divisional Officers had authority to issue Form-V notices under the new Act and the necessity of verifying signatures.

Ratio Decidendi: The absence of new rules under the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 permits the continued application of old rules, and the Revenue Divisional Officers can issue Form-V notices without verifying signatures.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners question validity of no-confidence notices. (Para 1)
2. arguments against authority and procedure for no-confidence motions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. respondents argue for validity of no-confidence motions. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15)
4. court's view on application of old rules under new act. (Para 17 , 19 , 20)
5. supreme court's stance on old rules during legislative transition. (Para 25)
6. court's interpretation of procedural validity in no-confidence motions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
7. court's final ruling on the dismissal of writ petitions. (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 petitioners.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14470 of 2022, consider

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