M. Raja Reddy vs Revenue Divisional Officer and Others

Heard both the Counsel.

Both the Counsel have agreed to dispose of the main writ petition.

Mr. Anjaneyulu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner questions the notice of No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is the Mandal Parishad President, Raichoti elected on 18-3-1995. A notice of intention to move No-Confidence Motion was given to the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer on 2-5-1998 for convening a meeting. The 1st respondent issued a notice on 13-5-1998 to all the members fixing the date for No-Confidence Motion as 5-6-1998 at 11 a.m.

He further submits that the members who moved the 1st respondent for convening a meeting of No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner, issued notice to the 1st respondent on 2-5-1998, but not as contemplated under Rule 3 issued u/s 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, as the date of meeting was fixed by the 1st Respondent on 5-6-1998 which is beyond 30 days; as such, the same is invalid.

He further submits that the notice is not given as required under the Rules in Form No.II and the notice issued for No-Confidence Motion was not signed by the requisite members and also two members in the presence of the 1st respondent. The notice was not served on the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 3 issued u/s 245 of the Act. The signatures of the members on the notice of No-Confidence Motion arc not voluntary and they are forged. The members who signed the notice were disqualified having failed to attend three consecutive meetings and they forfeit their membership; as such they are not entitled to move the No-Confidence Motion. On 26-4-1998, a report was also submitted to the Mandal Development Officer with regard to their absence on three consecutive meetings. Notice of No-Confidence Motion was subsequently issued on 2-5-1998. He has also filed a copy of the requisition of No-Confidence Motion submitted to the 1st respondent which is in Form No.I which is filed as material paper No.3. As such, the notice issued by the members to the 1st respondent is legally defective.

Smt. Sudharani, the learned AGP appearing for the 1st respondent and Smt. Shobha, appearing for respondents-2 to 16 repel the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and it is submitted that a notice of intention to move motion in Form II (English version) as required u/s 245(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 against the petitioner was delivered in person on S-5-1998 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Cuddapah. Fifteen members out of total strength of 22 members in the Mandal Parishad have signed on the above form of Notice and two members viz., Sri K. Khader Rasha and Sri Y. Haranath Reddy have delivered the same in person.

It is farther submitted that Rule 2 and 2(ii) of the rules relating to Motion of No-Confidence in President, Mandal Parishad u/s 245 of the Act issued in G.O. Ms.No.399, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mandal-I) Department dated 29-10-1997 contemplates that one half of the total members of the Mandal Parishad have to sign on Form II together with a copy of proposed motion to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. Rule 3 of the Rules contemplates that the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned shall convene and preside over a meeting for the consideration of the motion at Mandal Parishad office duly giving meeting notice to all the Members in form V providing time of not less than 15 days clear excluding the date of notice and date of the proposed meeting. Accordingly, the 1st respondent duly following the procedure prescribed in the above rules, has convened and presided over the meeting on 5-6-1998 at 11-00 a.m in Mandal Parishad office, Raichoty.

In para 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is specifically stated that out of 22 total members of Raichoty Mandal Parishad, 15 members have signed on Form II duly enclosing a copy of proposed Motion of No-Confidence against the petitioner and the two members viz., Sri K. Khader Pasha and Sri Y. Haranatha Reddy have delivered in person to the 1st respondent on 8-5-1998, but not on 2-5-1998 as alleged by the petitioner and it is denied that notice of No-Confidence Motion delivered to the 1st respondent was in Form No.1 as alleged by the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the signatures of 15 members who moved the No-Confidence Motion in Form No.II are tallying with the signatures put on the copy of the resolution enclosed to Form No.II. The signatures of the parties were verified by the Mandal Development officer with the Original Register i.e., the Minutes book of the Mandal Parishad and they were found tallied with tire signatures that were affixed on the resolution enclosed to Form II.

In para 6 of the counter-affidavit, it is submitted that the 1st respondent issued notice in Form V on 13-5-1998 duly fixing 5-6-1998 at 11 a.m. as the date and time for convening of the meeting of No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner. Thus, there are 15 clear days in between date of notice i.e., 13-5-1998 and the date of meeting i.e., 5-6-1998. Hence, the notice issued by the respondent No.1 is in order and satisfy the Rule 3 of the rules issued u/s 245(1) of the Act.

It is submitted that the notice issued by the respondent was served by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Raichoty on all the members through Extension officer (Rural Development) Raichoty and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Raichoty on 14-5-1998 and 15-5-1998 in person in the prescribed manner. A copy of the notice was also sent by Registered Post to all the members including the petitioner on 14-5-1998 by the Mandal Parishad Development officer, Raichoty, when the Mandal Revenue Inspector and other officials went to serve personally on the petitioner, he refused to receive the same; as such, the same was affixed on the door by conducting a panchanama. The notice issued through registered post was returned as refused; as such, the contentions of the petitioner that the notices were not served in accordance with the rules, are denied.

Smt. Shobha representing respondent Nos.2 to 16 submits that they arc the members who have moved the No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner and they testified to the effect that No-Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner and they have signed on Form No.II and the two members viz., Sri K. Khader Pasha and Sri Y. Haranath Reddy have submitted the notice of No-Confidence Motion to the 1st respondent as required under the rules.

The learned AGP appearing for the 1st respondent and Smt Shobha, appearing for respondents 2 to 16 assert that the petitioner has moved this Court only to protract the proceedings of No-Confidence Motion initiated against the petitioner which is in conformity with the rules and the entire procedure as prescribed has been followed and as such, this writ petition be dismissed.

In order to verify the above allegations, this Court has directed the learned AGP for the Panchayat Raj to produce the original record of the proceedings and accordingly, she has produced the original record before the Court.

The record reflects that motion expressing want of confidence against the petitioner for convening the meeting has been signed by 15 members and the two members viz., Sri K. Khader Pasha and Sri Y. Haranath Reddy have presented the same enclosing the resolution before the 1st respondent on 8-5-1998 under his signature. It is observed that the notice which has been signed by 15 members as required on Form No.II has been in compliance with the rules. The date of meeting of No-Confidence Motion fixed on 5-6-1998 comes within 30 days from 8-5-1998.

On verification of the record, notices were served on all the members of Raichoty Mandal Parishad by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Raichoty through Extension Officer (Rural Development) Raichoty and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Raichoty on 14-5-1998 and 15-5-1998 and as the petitioner refused to receive them on,-15-5-1998, the same was affixed on the door by conducting a panchanama.

The panchanama which was in Telugu was read over to me in English by my Personal Secretary and also by the learned AGP for Panchayat Raj and Smt. Shobha, appearing for respondents 2 to 16 with regard to the service of notice.

Insofar with regard to the disqualification of membership of two members having not attended three consecutive meetings, it is submitted by the learned AGP for Panchayat Raj that as contemplated under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, no such report was sent to the District Panchayat Officer with regard to the absence of members on three consecutive meetings. As such, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

It is submitted that the meeting expressing no confidence has been held as . scheduled on 5-6-1998 at 11 a.m but by virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court in WPMP 17443 of 1998, dated 28-5-1998, the result has been withheld.

For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, I hold that there is no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, there is no illegality or infirmity of prescribed procedure in holding the meeting expressing No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner; as such this writ petition lacks merits. The interim orders dated 28-5-1998 granted in WPMP No.17443 of 1998 are vacated and the WPMP 17443 of 1998 is dismissed and WVMP No.2399 of 1998 is allowed,

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.