THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.19308, 19344, 19310, 19331, 19332, 19333,19334, 21114, 22225, 22227, 22228, 22229, 22230, 22231, 22232, 22233, 22234, 22226, 21115, and 21117 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether a Whip can be issued by any political party to its members in the context of a no conﬁdence motion, moved under Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). In quite large number of Mandal Parishads, steps were initiated under Section 245 of the Act by the Members concerned to move the motion of no conﬁdence against the person, holding the Oﬃce of President or Vice-President, as the case may be. In some cases, the motions of no conﬁdence were carried out and in others, not. In the instant cases, the political parties are said to have issued Whips to their Members as to the pattern of voting or abstention, as the case may be. After the meetings were concluded, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcers concerned have acted upon the complaints made by the political parties and initiated steps for disqualifying the Members or the President on the ground that they have violated the Whips issued by their parties. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao and Sri K.Venumadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the concept of Whip is incorporated only under Section 153 of the Act, that too, in the context of elections vis- à-vis diﬀerent Oﬃces and the same is conspicuously absent in the matter of no conﬁdence motion under Section 245 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. They have relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in M.MOHAN RAO v REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS[1]. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and the learned counsel representing the contesting respondents, submit that though there is no specific provision under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the spirit underlying the concept of Whip, which is introduced for the elections, equally applies to the motions of no confidence also. This Court called for an explanation from the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcers, Karimnagar and Jagtial as to on what basis, they have initiated proceedings vis- à-vis the petitioners. An aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Karimnagar on behalf of the Oﬃcers to the eﬀect that they have initiated the proceedings on an impression that the principles underlying elections would also apply to the motions of no conﬁdence and that they have realized their mistake at a later point of time. The endeavour of the Legislature is always to respect the mandate of the electorate and every effort should be made to preserve the same. The term of an elected representative can be cut short only through the process known to law and not otherwise. The A.P. Legislature consciously introduced the concept of issuance of Whip and provided for the consequences of violation thereof, only in relation to elections. Corresponding provisions were incorporated under Section 153 of the Act. The facility to move motion of no conﬁdence is almost an exception to the rule. That is why, a strict procedure stipulating the norms therefor is prescribed under Section 245 of the Act and the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998. There is no mention of Whip in any of these provisions. As a matter of fact, the concept of Whip does not ﬁt into the one, of moving of no conﬁdence motion. The reason is that it is only when majority of the Members present a requisition in Form-II, that steps can be initiated. Section 245 of the Act and the Rules do not mandate that the signatories must abide by their parties. Once a meeting is convened on the basis of notice in form-V, no discussion is permitted and the views of members are expressed by raising of hands. There is no mention of issuance of Whip, at this stage also. The Division Bench of this Court, in Mohan Rao’s case clearly held that there is no provision for issuance of Whip at the time of carrying out motions of no confidence. Under these circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed and various steps taken by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcers vis-à-vis the petitioners are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.10.2008. kdl [1] 1998 (5) ALD 193 (DB)