Allowed

Smt. Chenagani Saidamma v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022WP/12469/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a writ petition challenging a Form-IV notice for a no-confidence motion. The Court held that issuing the meeting notice without the mandatory preliminary Form-I motion notice rendered the action arbitrary and without jurisdiction, setting aside the impugned notice without costs.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the Form-IV notice dated 18.05.2021 issued by Respondent No.4 and consequent closure of pending miscellaneous petitions without costs.

Smt. Chenagani Saidamma Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12469 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Chenagani Saidamma, W/o.Venkanna, Aged about 42 yearc, Occ. UpaSarpanch of Thadakamalla Grama Panchayat, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶8

-..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

I The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 3 District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 4 The Deputy District Election Authority and Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

¶12

E Mukka Lingaiah S/o. Mukka Kbtaiah, Aged about 35^years, OccWard Member, No. 4-12, Yadava Colony, Tadakamalla, Nalgonda Telangana 508 217.

¶13

6 Alugubelli Nagi Reddy S/o. Saidireddy,, Aged about40^yearq Occ.^Ward Member, No. 4-12, Yadava Colony, Tadakamalla, NalgondaTelangana⁵⁰⁸ 217.

¶14

7 Sunkireddy Anthi Reddy S/o. Sunki^Reddy Veera Reddy,,^{Aged about 60} Years, Occ. Ward Member, R/o. 1-189, Tadakamalla, Miriyalaguda MandalamTadakamalla,Telang ana^{508 217.}

¶15

8 Shaik Jahiruddin Sio. Shaik lbrabeem,^aged about^{35 Years, Occ Ward} Member, Rlo. 2 h43, Tadakamalla,^{Miriyalaguda Mandalam} Tadakamalla,Telangana 5OB^{21 7}

¶16

Respondents 5 to 8 are^{impleaded as per C.O.dt' 2310212022 in l'A' No'}

¶17

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in tf,e atiAauitfiled therewith' the High Court. may be} pleased to issue an approfriate^{wr-itt o.rgeror direction more particularlyone in} of WR|T Of^{rrlnfuOnrrlUSi'roldingthe actionof the Respondent No'4 in} in" "rtrr" ;;;ri";;" impugned^{Notice in Form - lV videNo'B/141 912021} '^{dt' 1810512021'}

¶20

¶21

under^{sub-Section 30('l} ) of the Terangana^panchayat Raj^pct, 201g (Act No.5 of 2018)^basing on the alleged notice of No confidenie tt40tion against the Petitioner, without forrowing due procedure of law conten.prated undir raw as -inoia, illegal, arbitrary, u nco nstitutional, violation of Article 14 of bonstitution of besides viotation of Rure 2 and 3 of G.o.Ms.No20o pR a,rd no, otzelo+irdse 3^{nd-9onseQ uentlyto stay aI proceedingsof the impugned Nr;tice} in Form - rv uio" No.B/141912021 , dt 1Bro5r2_0^zl _^{incr-uding directio"nnot io conduct proposed} meeting to be herd on 0510612021 , at 11.00 am, at rhadakamaira 'cra..n Panchayat in the interest of justice.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 20 21

¶23

Petition under section rs1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppo( of the petition, ihJHign court nraj o"'pi"r*i'il ,t"v 9l.p19^cgeginos^{of the impusned Notice in rorri_} lv vio,,: No.eil4igtioit,'it. 18]P^11.?0?1,^{includingdirectionnot to conductproposed} rneeting to be held on the writ petition. O5lOOl2021 , at 11.00 am, at Thadakamalla Gram eancnayat p""Oi.g alp""rf "f

¶24

lA NO: 3 oF 2021

¶25

Between:

¶26

'1. The State of Telanoana Fqp, bV its_principal Secretan.., panchayat Raj

¶27

Department, secreiariai aJiioi"!r, s"iiliSi"ii"vjirr rro.

¶28

The District Collector, Nalgonda District.

¶29

District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Districl.

¶30

4' The Deputv District Erection Authority and Revenue Di,,risionar officer, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

¶31

AND

¶32

... l:)elitioners/Respondents

¶33

Smt. Chenagani Saidamma

¶34

R:ffi ffi :;,3,tii3'55[H?iI'%',:,?,:".8i,+fl^{:$,:i,tlx,,.r.,ffi} ;oii;,rfjl

¶35

RespondenUpetitioner

¶36

'fl:l[:.,,w:"lif #5I:5sis6l*%:ff 3]illi,:a,";.a"oi:#ff:""uou

¶37

'#:fl*?:Hs'lft l%ij?;.,3"L.""ik"fl ?3*3p3li,:'ilffi il.i"",.T;H?tou

¶38

';,1,'#tri:?m.]il+;x,"; j:[iiir"r"-:H jsifl/,;03,:ffr""**

¶39

¶40

¶41

5 Shaik Jahiruddin S/o. Shajk lbrabeem, aged about 35 years, Occ:Ward It/ember,^eJ-o. 2 I 1 43, Tadakamalli] n,iiriv'rf rgrdi-Mi*njurr. Tada kama tla, Telangana SOB 211

¶42

... Respondents/ Respondents

¶43

Petitron under section 151.cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support ot the peti;6ir, inL Hiif, Court may be pleased to 2021. vacate the interim order dated:3r6r2021 in rA.No.1 2ozl in W.'p GIiz?og "r

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. RApOLU BHASKAR

¶45

counsel for the Respondent No's. 1 ,3& 4: Gp FoR pANcHAyAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶46

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶47

counsel for the Respondent No's. 5 to 8: sRI p.vTsHNUVARDHANA REDDY

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK ]:T[)DDY WRIT PETITION NO 1 2469 0F 2021

¶50

ORDER:

¶51

Challenging the issuance of Form,IV notice Nc,.B/ l4Ig /2021, dated 18.05.2021 by respondent No.4 scheduling r_he meeting on 05.06.2O21 for the purpose of moving the motion oi no_confidence, t}re present Writ Petition is filed.

¶52

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Form-lV notice dated Ig.OS.2O2l was received by the petitioner on 23.05.2021 and along with the sar:re, neither the Form-I nor the proposed motion of no-confidencc was encrosed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as pr:r the Form-lV notice, dated L8.OS.2O2L, the meeting is schedulerl to be held on 05.06.2021 and the same was served on thc petitioner on 23.05.2021, which is in violation of Rules 2 and, 3 stipulated under G.O. Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal_I), dated 28.04.1998 which specifies that 15 days clear notice should be there l.retween the date of notice and the date of the proposed meeting. Learned counsel has further stated that 15 days period should be calcurated from tl.e date of service of notice on the petitioner i.e. 23.os.2o2r and if the same is taken into consideration the 15 days period is not met and therefore seeks to set aside the impugned Form-lV n,ttice.

¶53

Per contra, the learned Government pleadr,:r appearing on behalf of the of{icial respondents has contended that the official

¶54

¶55

¶56

respondents have strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Rules 2 and 3 enunciated under G.O. Ms.No.2gO, p.R. & R.D. (Mandal-l), dated 28.04. 1998. That out of i2 ward members, 9 ward members have submitted the letter ol the proposed no_confidence motion along with Form-i and based on the same, the Form_IV notice was issued to the pedtioner. That the requirement of 15 days clear notice has been met as the notice is dated 1g.OS.2O2l and the date of the schedured meeting is on 05.06.202 1 which is werl after 15 days. That mere service of Form-lV after a few days delay cannot be a ground to set aside the Form_IV notice and reiied on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in SmL K. Sujatha os. The Goaemment of Andhra pradesht to buttress her contentions. Therefore, she prayed this Court to dismiss the Writ petition with costs.

¶57

Learned counsei appeari;1g on behalf of the unoflicial respondents while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Government pleader has stated that respondent Nos.S to 9 along with some other ward members have submitted the Letter of the proposed no-confidence motion along with Form-I notice to respondent No.4-Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and they have followed the procedure contemplated under the Telangana panchayat Raj Act, 2018, as well as the Ruies framed thereunder. It is further stated that the allegations made by the petitioner that he has not 1 2OO4 (2) APrJ 330 (HC)

¶58

¶59

received the 1;rc,posecl no_conf.idence motion and Fc rm_l is without any substancc and contrary to the record.

¶60

Perused the material on record.

¶61

A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition shows that the petidoner has enclosed only Form-IV notice dated rc.OS.2O2l wherein the meeting is sche,luled to be held on 05.06.2021 but the Form-I or letter of the proposcrd motion of no_ confidence has not been filed by the petitioner. Ther,:fore, this Court has called for the original record pertaining to the l)resent Form_lV notice and accordingly, the original record has been placed before this Court.

¶62

A perusal of the original record shows that ctrt of 12 ward members, 9 ward members have submitted the letter of the proposed no-confidence motion to the RDO, who has endorse,:l the said letter on 17.O5.2O21 by the RDO conceyned. But, the record reveals that no Form-l notice was submitted by the said ward members along with the letter of the proposed no-confidence mot:on to the RDO concerned

¶63

Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.2O0, p.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I), dated 2g.04.199g, read as undr.:r:

¶64

"2. A notice of the intentlon to make the motrlon shall be in Form-I, in Form-II annexed to these rules either in E:rglish or in Telulg or in Urdu language, signed by not less than )n,l_half of the total number of members of the GraE panchayat, [Mandal praja Parishad or ZIIIa Parishadl as the case Eray be, together with a copy of the proposed Eotion, and shall be delivere<l ln person by

¶65

¶66

any two of the members who signed such notice, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-collector es Assistant Collector, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the casc of Upa-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat; or President and Vice President of a [Mandal Pra;a Parishad]; or to the District Collector in the case of Chairman and ViceChairman of lz|lla Praja l,arishadl as the case may be;

¶67

"3. The concerned olficer specified in Rule 2 {hereinafter) in this rule referred to as said officer shall then convene and preside over a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of a Gram Panchayat, or at the lMandat Praja Parishadl ... the [Zilla Praja Parishad], as the case may be, on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty da-ys from the date on which the notice under Rule 2 was delivered to him. IL) shall give to every member of Gram Panchayat, [Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishadl, as the case may be, the notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed tneeting of such meeting in Form-fV, or in Form-V or in Form-VI annexed to these rules either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, whichever is applicable."

¶68

(emphasis added)

¶69

As per the above extracteci Rules, the Ward Members have to submit the Form-I notice along with the letter of the proposed motion of no-confidence to the RDO concerneid, based on which, the RDO carr take further steps by issuing the Form-IV notice. But, in this case, as seen from the record, immediately after receipt of the proposed no-confldence motion, without there being any Form-l notice, the RDO has issued the Form-lV notice.

¶70

A learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.i9O60 and 2L746 of 2OO8, dated 29.1O.2OO8, has held as under:

¶71

"12. Various steps prescribed by the principal or subordinate legislature, b€ it in relation to election of

¶72

¶73

¶74

repreScntiitiVcs for the Sta ' or^local bodies, 'lr marters rerating trrereto, nced strict For instance, l10t onry the manner in which ,n"^"oro""r*' meric,.,rous deta,s to .. .;i:;:"Jl"T:' :.:j:l ":H::: counting, etc, are stipulated, under the relevant pr )visjons. An), deviation there from, whic m andate, wourd nu r riry *. .:"::: r'::"::":..'j, :' r::T,,1: Act and the Rules are akin reverse direction. ".-o...j"rl'1;I,:""ff J,::ff ::: election, the one stipulated for dislodging an elected representative must be complied in a more meticu!)us mairner. This is in addition to the well established principl( that where law requires a particular tt manner, it must be,, ,n", -."1?..j"".:'.,:1;,.'"" 'ir^particular

¶75

Por the afore-stated reasons and in view of thc ratio laid down by this (tourt in the 4[6ys referred judgment, rhr: issuance of Form-lV notice by the RDO concerned without sulrrnission o1 any Form-I notice as mandated under Rules 2 and 3 errunciated under G.O. Ms.No.2OO, p.R. & R.D. (Mandat{), dated 28.04.1998, is not only arbitrary, bad and illegal, briialso one without jurisdiction.

¶76

Therefore, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside the Form-IV notice dated lg.OS.2O2l issued by respondert No.4.

¶77

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

__.^SD/-K.ONESU' //TRUE " '^{r\vt- teL'rr/'} CoPYil DEPUW REG|STTIAR "EcroN^{o#lcen /}

¶79

To,

¶80