Dismissed

Appula Pentamma v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Mar 2022WP/11760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the validity of a Form-IV notice issued for a no-confidence motion against a Upa-Sarpanch. The Court held that the procedure followed under pre-repeal Rules was legally sustainable and the notice was not illegal, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the Form-IV notice was upheld as valid.

Appula Pentamma Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

[/ONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 11760 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Appula Pentamma, D/o.Appula Ramaiah, Aged about 43^years, Occ.^Upa Sarpanch, R/o.3-6211, Gowdavalli Village,^{Ir/edchal lr,4andal, Ivledchal-Malkajgiri} District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary^PanchayatRaj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The District Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶12

3 The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub-Collector,^{Keesara Division, Medchal-} Malkajgiri District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ of l/andamus, or any other appropriate^{writ, orderor} direction, declaring the action of the^{3rd respondent in issuingan Notice dated} ....2.2022 in Form-lV under Sec.30(1)^{and (2) of the Telangana PanchayatRa.i} Act, 20 18 proposing to conduct^{no-confidence motion meeting on 15.3.2022 al} 11.00 AM at Gowdavalli Gram Panchayat,^{L4edchal-lt4alkajgiriDistrict, as illegal,} arbitrary and without^{jurisdiction and set aside the same.}

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶16

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} grant interim suspension of the Notice daled ....2.2022^{in Form-lV issued by the} 3rd respondent under Sec.30('1 )and^{(2) of the Telangana PanchayatRaj Act,} 2018 proposing to conduct no-confidence^{motion meeting on 15.3.2022at 11 OO} AM at Gowdavalli Gram Panchayat,^{Medchal-Malkajgiri, pendingdisposalof the} above writ^petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{C RAGHU}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents:^{GP FORPANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL} DEVELOPMENT

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER.

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISI{EI( REDDY

¶21

I^'RIT PETITION n-o.11760 of 2022

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitionel and the learnec-l Covernment Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Developrnent appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

¶24

This writ petition is filed challenging the Form-[V rrotice. issuecl bv the respondent No.3 under Section 30 (1) and (2) of thc' Telanqana Panchayat Raj i\ct,2018 (for short,'the 2018 Act'), schecluling the rnecting of 'No Confic-lence Motion'orr 15,03.2022 at 11:00 A.N,l. at Cor'r,clavalli Cran'r Panchayat, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the responclent No.3, without following the procedure as contemplatecl under the 2018 Act, has issued impugned Form-lV notice. That after coming into force the 2018 Act, the Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (heleinaftel referrecl to as^'the olcl Act') stood repealed and the Rules frar-ned thereunder also stood repealed, and that without framing the nen, RLr les, the of f icia I respondents have issued the impugned Forrn-lV r-roticc,^"[he learnetl

¶26

¶27

counsel^{has further stated that there is no date on the impugnedForm-IV} notice, and^{therefore,the entire proceedingsare vitiated' illegal and bad'}

¶28

The learned^{Government Pleader' based on the written instructions'} has stated^{that after receiving the representationfrom the Ward Members} in Form-I,^{which was signedby the seven Ward Members out of the twelve} Warcl Mernbers on^{15.02.2022,the RevenueDivisional Officer'Keesara} Division,^{lras issued the impugnedForm-lV notice on 21'02'2022'The} learned Gor,elnnrent^{Pleader.hasdrawn the attention of this Court to tlre} impugned^{Form-lV notice,which shows that the respondentNo 3 has} signed^{the sameon 21'02'2022'The meetingof 'No ConfidenceMotion'} wasscheduledtobeheldonL5.03.2022,Thatpriortotherepealoftheold Act, the Government^{had issuedG'O'Ms'No'200' Panchayat Raj and Rural} Development^{(Manual-ll) Department' dated28'04'1998' underwhich'the} Rules relating^{to the Motion of No-Confidence against Upa-Sarpanchof the} Gram Panchayat,^{or Presidentor Vice-Presidentof Mandal Parishad' or} Chairperson^{or Vice-ChairPerson of the Zilla Parishadwere enumerated'} As per Rules^{2 and 3 of the said G'O Ms'No'200dated28'04'1998' the} Motion of^{the No Confidencehas to be submittedto the Revenue Diviiional} Officer^{concernedin Form-i'Thereafter' the llevenue DivisionalOfficer} cotrcernedslrouldissuetheForrn.lVnoticefixingthedateofthemeeting within a period^{of 30 days from the date on whichthe Forrn-lhasbeen}

¶29

¶30

received. Another condition as per Rule 3 is that there should be fifteen (15) days clear period between the date of the Form-tV notice and the clate of the proposed meeting excluding the date of notice

¶31

Admittedly, in the instant case, the Form-l r,vas issued on 1.5.02.2022 and the Form-IV was issued on 21.02.2022 schedr-rling thc. n-reeting (llt 75.03.2022 Therefore, Form-I and Form-lV notices are incorrforrnity r.vith Rules 2 and 3 of G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.04.2002.

¶32

Having regard to the fact that after repeal of the oltl Act, neu, Rules have not yet been framed, the contention of the learnecl counsel for the petitioner that the procedure adopted by the authorities under tl-re old Rules cannot be sustained is without any legal basis

¶33

7 A perusal of the provisions of the Old Act, more particularly, Section 245 of the Old Act makes it clear that the Rules under the olci Act anci the new Act are same.

¶34

E Section 245 of the Old Act is extracted below for better under.standing and disposal of the case

¶35

Motion of no confidence in Llpa-Sarltonch, Prcsident or "Chairperson":-

¶36

(1) A motion expressing want of confdcncc itr tltt, Llpr Sarpanch or Presid.ent or Vice-President or "Clnirperson'' or "ViceCluirperson may be made W gittitrg a rr:ritten notice ,f intention to\ moue tle motion irr srq/r fortt nnrl to srrc/r

¶37

¶38

nutlnrity ns nny be llrescnbed, signed by not less tlun onehnlf of the total ntmber of nembers of the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Pnrislntl, or as llrc case nny be the Zilla Parislud and furtlrl action on such nltice slmll be taken in accordance uith tle procedure prescribed:

¶39

Prouided tlut no notice of motion under this section slmll be mtde ruithin four years of the date of assumption of ot'fcc lty tle person against tohom tlu motion is sougtlt to be ntozted:

¶40

Prottitled furtlur tlut no suclt notice slull be made against tlv sn te person ntore tlun once during his ternt of offce.

¶41

Explnnation: for tfu remoual ,f doubt, it is hereby declat'ed thnt fo, tltL purpose ,f tltis section tlu expressiott "kttal nun ter of nrcntbers" neal,Lq all the members t0l1o are entitled to ttote in tle election to tlrc ofice concerned. ittclttsiue of the Saryanch, President or^{"Cluiryersorr"} but irrespectioe of any uacancy existing in tlu oJfce of su.ch nrcntbers nt the tinrc of nteeting:

¶42

Prouided that a suspencled ofice bearer or member slnll nlso he tnken into consideration for cofiputitlg the total nrrnrher of members nnd lrc slnll also be entitled to lote in n tneeting lrcld under tlis scctiotr.

¶43

(2) If the tnotton is cnrried ruith tlw support ol ttoo-tlirds of the total ttrrnrbar of nuntrbers itr tfu cnse of a Upa-Satpanclt the Conmtissioner shall awl tn tle cnse of tlre Prestdtnt or Vice-President or tlu " Anirperson", tle Gotternruent slnll by notifcation rentote him ftom offce and tlrc resulting t acfincy slnll be flled in tfu sanle ftnnner as a casual aacancy.

¶44

Explanationi For tlte purpose of this Section, in tlu members, dttermination of ttuo-thirds of tlu total nufiber "f any fraction belou 0.5 shall be ignored and any fraction "f 0,5 or abooe slnll be taken as one."

¶45

In view of the aforestated reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality with the impugned Form-IV notice issued by the

¶46

¶47

¶48

respondent No.3 warranting^{interferenceof this Court under Article 226 of} ;

¶49

the Constitution of India

¶50

The Writ Petition fails, and the^{same is, accordinglyclismissetl.}

¶51

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if^{anl', shall stanclclosed}

¶52

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

SD/.M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1: One CC to SRl. C RAGHU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶61

Two CD Copies

¶62

One Spare Copy^'

¶63

PB Itv-MMA

¶64

t-'-r;if--'I^{'-: "'}

.t'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410312022

ORDER

WP.No.11760 of 2022

a
f 'r,
I _.
,l : JUit (U
21
,,o
4.

/" AI

¶71

DISMISSING OF THE.WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶72

-t
i1.
1 ir ri t
r;.{

¶73

@
\E rb ld/

Appula Pentamma v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appula Pentamma v. State of Telangana

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

Fahmeeda Begum Vs The State of Telangana 3 others

V. Satyavardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Somisetty Shankaraiah Vs Smt.Bharati Hollikeri, IAS

Tarimela Vijay Kumar Vs M. Raghunandan Rao

M/s. Madhukunj Flat Occupants Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana, And 5 Others

Jangam Amulya Vs The State of Telangana