Dismissed

Smt. Mora Balamma v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Telangana HC13 Dec 2021WP/27950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the removal order of the petitioner as Upa Sarpanch under a No-Confidence Motion, the High Court held that the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 overrides the earlier 1998 Rules. Since the Act requires only one-half of members for such a motion, the petitioner's contention regarding the repealed two-thirds requirement lacked merit, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Removal Order of the Petitioner upheld.

Smt. Mora Balamma Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

IIIONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

wRlT PETITION NO: 27950 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. lVora Balamma, W/o Buchaiah, Aged about 55^{years, Occ, Upa Sarpanch,Ryo} H.No.1-29, Cheeded Village, Ivlancha' Ivlandal, Ranga Reddy^{District, Telangana} State

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

I The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary,^{Panchayat Raj andRural} Development Department, Secretariat, BRK^{Bhavan, Hyderabad}

¶11

2 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural^{Development,Urdu Galli,} Himayathnagar, Hyderabad Telangana State

¶12

3 The District Collector, Panchayat Wing^{(Pw) Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul,} Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶13

4 The Additional Collector, Local Bodies, Ranga^{Reddy District,Telangana State}

¶14

¶15

The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy^{District,TelanganaState}

¶16

6 The Revenue Division Officer, lbrahimpatnam,^{Ranga Reddy District,Telangana} State

¶17

7 The lvlandal Panchayat Development Officer,^{MPP, I.4anchal,Ranga Reddy} Distrlct, Telangana State

¶18

The l,4andal Panchayat Officer,^{l,4anchal l,4andal,Ranga Reddy District,} Telangana State

¶19

I Cheeded Grampanchayat, Rep^{by its Panchayat Secretary,l,4anchal lv4andal,} Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶20

RESPON DENTS

¶21

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue a Writ, order or direction,^{more particularlyone in the natureof WRITOF} MANDAIVUS declaring the action of the^{RespondentNo.3 issuing removal Order} vide Procd.No.354612021-A2^(PTs) dated^{18-10-2021againstthePetitioner for the} post of Upa Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Cheeded,^{Manchall'4andal,RangaReddy} District, without any^proper reason or^{findings and without followingGOMS.No.200} more^parlicularly Rule 6 and 7,^{also Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act 2018and} without^giving any opportunity to the^{Petitioner,as illegal, arbitrary and violation of} Principles of natural^{justice and consequentlyset aside the Removal Orderissued} by Respondent No.3 vide Procd.^{No.3546/2021-A2 (PTs)dated 18-'10-202'l against} the Petrtioner herein for the^post of^{Upa Sarpanch,GrampanchayatCheeded,} l,4anchal Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶22

il2il

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to} suspend the Removal Order issued by^{Respondent No.3 vide Procd.No.3546/2021-} A2 (PTs) dated 18-10-2021 against the Petitioner^{herein for the post of Upa} Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Cheeded, Manchal^{Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict,} pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{D. L. PANDU}

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent^Nos. 1,2,5,7^{& 8: GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^{3, 4 & 6: GP FoR REVENUE}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.g:SRIG. NARENDER REDDY,SC}

¶29

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD^KUMAR WRIT P ION No.27950 of 2021

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

The^present Writ Petition is filed to declare^{the actlonof} respondent No.3 in issuing Proceedings^{No.3546/2021-A2(PTS),dated} 18.10.2021, removing the^petitioner from the^post of^{Upa Sarpanch,as} being contrary to the Rules framed in^{G.O.Ms.No.200. Panchayat Raj &} Rural Development ([4andal-l), dated 28.04.1998, in^{particularRules6} and 7 thereoF.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioner and^{learned Government} Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the^{respondentsand with their} consent, the Writ Petition^itself is^taken up^{for disposalat thestage of} admisslon.

¶35

The main ground, on which challenge is laid to the^impugned proceeding, is that, as per G.O. f.4s. N0.200, dated 28.04.1998, hvo-third of the elected members are required to move the^Motion of^{No-Confldence} and^present at the meeting. Inasmuch as there^{were eightelectedWard} Members and one Sarpanch to Cheeded Gram^{Panchayat,i.e. totalnine} members, not less than six members were to be^{present in the meeting to} be held for moving motion of No-confidence.

¶36

It is further contended that the impugned order,^{dated 18.10.2021,} shows that, out of total nine members of the Gram Panchayat,^onlyflve members attended the meeting and took up the motion for^expressing want of confidence against the^petitioner and they had^voted unanimously, whlch according to^{petitioneris contrary} to^{Rules6 and7 of} G.O.Ms.No.200, PR & RD^(Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998.

¶37

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, opposing the Writ Petition, submits that as^per Section 30 of^the

¶38

¶39

Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short, 'the Act of 2018), the required number of Ward Members for moving a No-Confldence Motion is not less than one and half of the total members of the Gram panchayat and that in the present case, as flve members were present and have passed the motion against the petitioner, the same is in compliance with Section 30 of the Act of 2018 and that the claim of the petitioner that two-third of the Ward Members needs to be present for moving the NoConfldence Motion was specified in the Rules, which are framed under the repealed Act and thus, they are not applicable.

¶40

Further, it is also contended by the learned Government pleader that once the Act specified a particular number as required for moving NoConfidence [4otion, the prescriptjon in the Rules to the contrary to the Act of 2018, will have to give a way to the provisions of the Act, and as such, the present writ^petition is liable to be djsmissed.

¶41

I have taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appea ring for the parties.

¶42

It ls to be seen that G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998 was issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 245 read with sub-section (1) of Section 268 of the Andhra pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short'the Act of 1994). The said Act was adopted by the State of Telangana upon its formation. Thus, even the G.O. issued under the Act of 1994 has been made applicable to the State of Telangana. Rules 6 and 7 ofthe Rules framed thereunder speciry the requirement of 2l3d of elected members to be present at meeting for moving a Motion of No-Confidence against Upa-sarpanch. However, the Act of 1994, as adopted by the State of Telangana, has been repealed by Act 5 of 2018, upon enacting Act of 2018.

¶43

¶44

The Act of 1994 thus stood repealed^{upon theenactment of the} Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act,2018, as^{Gazettedon 30,03.2018.} The Act of 2018 clearly specifles the minimum^{requlrednumber for} moving a No-Confidence Motion^against the^{Upa Sarpanch"to be not less} than one half of the total^number of^{membersof theGramPanchayat".} The Act having specified the minimum^{required numberof membersfor} moving Motion of No-Confidence^{against Upa Sarpanch,the prescriptionin} the Rules to the contrary cannot be^given effect^{to' It is well settled} positlon of law that when there is a conflict betlveen the Act and^the Rules, the Act will^prevail over the^{Rules,since the Rulesareframed} under the Act.

¶45

In view of the same, since the^Act of^{2018 prescribes one half of} the members as minimum^number to^{move the Motion of No-Confldence,} the claim of the^petitioner that two-third of^{the membersare required to} move the Motion as specifled in^Rules 6^{and 7 of G.O.Ms.No200, dated}

¶46

28.04.1998, cannot be accepted.

¶47

Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit^{and is liable to be} dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶48

lZ. Pending miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, shall standclosedin the}

¶49

light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶50

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSIS NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to Sri D. L. Pandu, Advocate IOPUC]

¶55

Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶56

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶57

One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC [OPUC]

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

One Spare Copy

GJ t* c$e

HIGH COURT

TVK,J

DATED:13/1212021

I
I

ORDER

WP.No.27950 of²⁰²¹

<br>a1
& ,,:,
1 .s'
F |.: I
_=-
.,:11c cO

¶68

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

$.nu*^*

Smt. Mora Balamma v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mora Balamma v. The State of Telangana and 8 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guguloth Ramdas Vs Danasari Bayamma

Sunkara Ramakrishna Vs Sunkara Srinivasa Rao

Sri Vancha Veera Reddy Vs Smt. Pamela Satpathy and 2 Others

M/s Jagadamba Agro Tech Vs The State of Telangana

Yedla Kishtaiah Vs State of Telangana and 5 others

Komati Muthaiah Vs Komati Sai Charan