Gummadi Srinivas v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No.26276 of 2018 ORDER :

Heard the counsel for petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2.

The petitioner herein has assailed notice No.B/812/2018, dt.19.07.2018, issued by 1st respondent purporting to conduct a 'No Confidence Motion' against petitioner, who is the President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Thoopran, on a strength of requisition issued by 3rd respondent and others.

3.

The counsel for petitioner contended that the requisition given by 3rd respondent and others does not conform to Form-II of the Rules relating to motion of 'No Confidence' in Upa Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President of Mandal Praja Parishad or ViceChairperson / Chairperson of Zilla Parishad Rules notified vide G.O.Ms.No.200 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Mandal-I) dt.28.04.1998. In particular, he contended that 3rd respondent and others having stated in the representation (Ex.P.2) given by them that they wish that a meeting be specially convened for the purpose of taking up a Motion expressing want of Confidence in petitioner, the impugned notice is defective.

MSR,J wp_26276_2018 ::2::

4.

In Bandila Audi Seshamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, which was followed by this Court in its order dt.29.11.2017 in WP.No.33745 of 2017, the Full Bench judgment of this Court in K. Sujatha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj Department and another2 was interpreted to mean that the Legislature had not provided that non-compliance of procedural provisions of service of notice or form of notice, would render the Vote of 'No Confidence' invalid; and that the object of procedural law is to apprise the Member or the President that the Vote of 'No Confidence' would be held on a particular date and time. 5.

Having regard to the same, I am of the opinion that the form of notice is not mandatory and it is sufficient if the same conveys a meaning that a Vote of 'No Confidence' is being expressed by some of the Members of Mandal Praja Parishad, Thoopran in the petitioner; and that non-mention in the requisition given by 3rd respondent and others for convening a meeting to consider the Motion of want of confidence in the petitioner is not fatal, invalidating the requisition given by 3rd respondent and others, particularly, when notice in FormV was issued by 1st respondent on 19.07.2018 convening such a meeting on 04.08.2018 at 11:00 a.m.

6.

Therefore, I see no merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. 1 2005 (2) A.L.D. 316 2 2004 (3) A.L.T. 682 (F.B.)

MSR,J wp_26276_2018 ::3::

7.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 31.07.2018 Ndr/*