Banoth Suresh Vs The State

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY IT PETITION 1 75 0F 20 Between:
Banoth Suresh, S/o.Sakram, aged about 31 years, Occ: Agricultule, R/0 5-44' Surya ihinoa, Pulluruu Village, Gad;Mandal' Mah'aboobabad District, Telangana'
...Petitioner/s AND
1 . T Dh ee v eS lota pt me eo nf t T Del ea pn ag ira tmna e, n P t, r Sin ec cip ra el t aS rie ac t,r e Bta Rr Ky ,P Ba han vc ah na ,y € St a,R ifaa bj aa dl ,q H . yR dY era ral b,ad'
2. The District Collector, Mahaboobabad District, Telangana.
3. The Additional Collector, Mahaboobabad District, Telangana, 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobabad District, Telangana.
5. The Revenue Divisional Offlcer' Mahaboobabad Division, TS'
6. Pulluru Gram Panchayat, Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Mahaboobabad District, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary.
7. Ch. Nagaraju, S/o. Malaiah, aged about 38 years,.Occ:Ward Member, Rl/o'
H.NO. ii-0; WC , Pulluru Vitt;ge, Garla Ma-ndal, Mahaboobabad District.
B. Maloth Jyothi, W/o. Maloth Shankar, aged about years' Occ: Rl/o. 6-30/2 Garla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam..
9. Jaroula Sushita ,Wio. Rajesh, aged about years, Occ: R/o. Pulluru, Garla Mahdal, Bhadradri Kothagudem
10.Boda Mohan, S/o. Sunder, aged about years' Occ:R/o. Bangla Thanda'Pulluru Garla Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem.
'1 1 . Bhukva Somi, W/o. Hari, aged about years, Occ: RJo Desya Thanda, Pulluru Villao'e, Garla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam.
12.Bhukya Rambabu, S/o. aged about Years' Occ: Desya Thanda, Pulluru Village'
Garla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam..
13. Banoth Ramesh, S/o. Chandru, aged about years, Occ: Ryo 6-1 , Pulluru Village'
Garla Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem.
RR 7 to 13 are impleaded as per C.O. dt. 1710212022 in l A. No 1/2022' ,,.Respondents PetitionunderArticle226oftheconstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent No-3 in issuing the Proceedings vide Order No 27612021lA1' dated 01/05/2021' removing the Petitioner from the office of Upa-sarpanch of Pulluru Gram Panchayat, Pulluru Village' Carla Mandel, Mahaboobabad District' by invoking the provisions of the repealed Telangana Panchayat Raj Act' 1994 and not giving the PetitioneranopporunityofhearingaSillegal,withoutjUriSdictionandinviolationof Telangana Panche lat Raj Act, 2018 and also against the principles of natural justice besides ir violation of Article 14 of The constitution of lndia and consequently set a ,ide the same.
lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between
1. The State ol Telangana, Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Developmer I Deprrtment, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Saifabad' Hyderabad'
2. The District )ollector, Mahaboobabad District, Telangana.
3. The Additior al Collector, Mahaboobabad District' Telangana, 4. The District 'anchayat Officer, Mahaboobabad District, Telangana'
5. The Revent e Divisional Officer, Mahaboobabad Division, TS'
...Petitioners/
Respondents 1 to 5 And
1. Banoth Su -'sh, S/o.Sakram, aged about 31 years, Occ: Agrrculture, R/o 5-44, Surya Thr nda, Pulluruu Village, Garla Mandal' Mahaboobabad District'
Telangana ..,Respondenu Petitioner
2. Pulluru Gr; m Panchayat, Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Mahaboobabad District, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary'
3. Ch. Nagar rju, S/o. Malaiah, aged about years, Occ: Ward Member R/o H'NO'
'11-9, VTC , Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Mahaboobabad District.
4. Maloth Jyr thi, W/o. Maloth Shankar, aged about years, Occ: R/o 6-30/2 Garla Mandal, Y rlandu, Khammam..
5. Jarpula S shila, W/o. Raiesh,aged about years, Occ; R/o. Pul uru, Garla Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem
6. Boda Mol an, S/o. Sunder, aged about years, Occ: R/o. Bangla Thanda,Pulluru Garla Ma dal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem.
7. Bhukya S :mi W/o. Hari, aged about years, Occ: R/o. Desya Thanda' Pulluru Village, C arla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam..
8. Bhuliya F ambabu, S/o aged about years, Occ: R/o. Desya Thanda, Pulluru Village, ( arla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam..
9. Ban6th F amesh, S/o. Chandru, aged about years, Occ: R/o. 6-1 , Pulluru Village, Garla M. idal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem.
RR 7 to 3 are impleaded as per C.O. d|.1710212022 in l.A. No. 1/2022.
..,Respondents/
Respondents No.6 Petition un( er Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order c rted:08/06/2021 in lA.No.1 ot 2Q21 in W.P.No. l2775 ol 2021 and also dismiss tl e Writ Petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2022:
Between '1. Ch. Nagaraju, S/o. Malaiah, aged about 38 years,-Occ:Ward [4ember, Ryo.
H,NO. 11-9, WC , Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Mahaboobabad District.
2. Maloth Jyothi, W/o. Maloth Shankar, aged about years, Occ: Rl/o. 6-30/2 Garla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam..
3. Jarpula Sushila ,W/o. Rajesh, aged about years, Occ: R/o. Pulluru, Garla Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem
4. Boda Mohan, S/o. Sunder, aged about years, Occ: Ryo. Bangla Thanda,Pulluru Garla Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem.
5. Bhukya Somi, W/o. Hari, aged about years, Occ: R/o. Desya Thanda, Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam..
6. Bhukya Rambabu, S/o aged about years, Occ: R/o. Desya Thanda, Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Yellandu, Khammam..
7. Banoth Ramesh S/o. Chandru, aged about years, Occ: R/o. 6-1, Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Bhadradri, Kothagudem.
...Petitioners/
Proposed Respondents 7 to 13 AND Banoth Suresh, S/o.Sakram, aged about 31 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o'5-44'
1 Suryj rnanoa, Pulluruu Vill5ge, Garla Mandal, Mahaboobabad District, Telangana.
...Petitioner/ResPondent
2. The State ofTelangana, Principal Secretary, Panchayat.Raj and Rural Deveiopment Depa-rtment, Seiretariat, BRK Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad
3. The District Collector, Mahaboobabad Diskict, Telangana'
4. The Additional Collector, Mahaboobabad District, Telangana, 5. The District Panchayat Officer, Ivlahaboobabad District, Telangana.
6. The Revenue Divisional Offlcer, Mahaboobabad Divlsion, TS.
7. Pulluru Gram Panchayat, Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, Mahaboobabad District, Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary.
...Respondents/ResPondents Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders on 08.06.2021)in W.P N0.12775 of 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. C H JAYAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No' 1 to 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI C' KALYAN RAO, SC FoR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent Nos'7 to 13 : SRI G VASANTHA RAYUDU The Court made the following: ORDER ,// // /.
THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY V RIT PETITION No.12775 of 2021.

ORDER:

Heard the 3arned counsel for the petitior-rer, the learnecl Government Pleac er for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for resp )ndent Nos.1 to 5, Sri C. Kalyan Rao, the learned Standing Counsel rcr Gram Panchayat appearing for res1,on.'lent No.6, and Sri G. Vasar,tha Rayudu, the learned counsel appearing for respondentNos.Tt)13.

Challenging the order uide No.276/2021/A1, dated 01.05.2021, passed by the resp rndent No.3 removing the petitioner from the post of Upa Sarpanch oI Pulluru Gram Panchayat, Pulluru Village, Garla Mandal, MahabuL tbad District, the petitioner has filecl the present writ petitio n Learned co, rnsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order has been ch rllenged mainly on two grounds, y'rstly the impugnecl order has been p ssed by invoking the piovisions of the Repeale i has passed the rpugned order, has no jurisdiction to pass the same. Learned counsel has further stated that the impugned order removing the petitioner fr rm the post of Upa Sarpanch, was passed without \

application of mind and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner., ancl therefore , Prayed to set aside the impugned order'

Insofar as the first ground raised by the Iearned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the learned Government Pleader has stated that theNoConfidenceMotionwasmovedagainstthepetitionerunder Section 30 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 20ls (for short"the 2018 Ac(), but the proforma forms used by the ward membbrs were old ones' and therefore, the sections under the Repealed Act were seen on the said forms. Learned Government Pleader has further stated that merely because Form-I and Form-IV reflect the sections under the Repealed Act, the same cannot be found fault with, as the Rules which were framed by under G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.04.1998 ate being adopted the authorities, since no new Rules have been framed under the 2018 Act' Therefore, reference to section 245 (2) of the Repealed Act in the Form-l and Form-lv cannot be found fault with. That as long as the powers are there under the 2018 Act, non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of the provision will not render the entire exercise bad or illegal'

lnsofar as the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that after the Resolution is passed by the Gram Panchayat on the No Confidence Motion basing on the report a of the Revenue Divis ronal officer, the District Collector is empowered to pass the consequenti rl order. That in the instant case, out of 11 members, seven members wer e Present along with the Sarpanch and they have unanimously suppc rted the No Confidence Motion and the same has been recorded in the minutes of the meetings and f orn'arded to respondent No.2 District Collector and the order of the District Collector is only a consequential order. Even though the respondent No.3 - Additiona L Collector has passed the impugnecl order, the Additional Collect rr is having the same powers as that of the District Collector and dt e to administrative convenience the powers are exercised by the A lditionat Collector, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fr ult with.

The learnec counsel for the unofficial responclents has statecl that the petitioner wa r fully aware that the Gram Panchayat has issued the No Confidence Iv otion for removing him from the post of Upa Sarpanch, but he did not participate in the meeting held on 76.04.2021., and therefore, the etitioner cannot complain that he was not given

opportunity of rearing. That there is no question of pu tting the petitioner on noi ice, that the Form-I and Form-IV by themselves are the notice of No Co rfidence Motion and the intimation of the Meeting for passing the said motion. The learned counsel has further stated that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.3 based on the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat only and it is only a consequential one, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document