IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.20651 of 2009 Between: Madum Nageswara Rao and another ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and seven others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court ordered notice before admission on 24-09-2009, issued rule nisi on 12-10-2009 and granted interim suspension for a period of three (3) weeks, which was subsequently extended for a further limited period. 2. W.P.M.P.No.30893 of 2009 was filed by the proposed party to be brought on record – respondent No.9 and the said application was ordered by this court today. 3. Sri B. Sreenivas Reddy, Sri B. Prabhakar had taken this court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case well explained in the said affidavit the writ petition to be allowed. 4. The learned AGP for Panchayat Raj had taken this court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and had pointed out to paras 5, 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit in particular and would maintain that the respondents are expected to follow the rules and procedure. Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.7 and 8 had taken this court to the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that from the directions issued by the District Panchayat Officer alone the further action had been initiated. 5. Sri V.V. Satish the learned counsel representing respondent No.9 who was brought on record would maintain that the object of the writ petitioners is only to prolong the proceedings and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there are no bonafidees. Even otherwise learned counsel would submit that the proposed party – respondent No.9 who came on record will have no objection if the authorities follow the due procedure in this regard. 6. Heard the counsel. Perused the affidavit in support of the writ petition and also the respective counter-affidavits filed by the respondent No.4 and also the affidavit filed by the proposed party to come on record. 7. The writ petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos.7 and 8 in conducting the requisition meeting of Kuppanapudi Grampanchayat on 17-09-2009 without issuing any notice to or without serving any agenda of the meeting on the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and the four other members of the Gram Panchayat and the resolutions passed on that day as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act with particular reference to Sections 31, 32 and 37 and also contrary to the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.227 dated 13-04-1995, G.O.Ms.No.199 dated 18-05-2007 and G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18-02-2005 and consequently set-aside the resolutions dated 17-09-2009 and pass such other suitable orders. 8. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the first petitioner is the Sarpanch of the 7th respondent Gram Panchayat and the second petitioner is the Upa-Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat and they had been elected as such during the Panchayat elections conducted in the month of August, 2006. It is also stated that the first petitioner was unanimously elected as Sarpanch. The Gram Panchayat consists of 13 members including the Sarpanch. Under the able leadership of the Sarpanch the Gram Panchayat is flourishing and they are striving hard for the development of the Gram Panchayat. 9. Further it is stated that on 19-09-2009 when they visited the Gram Panchayat they came to know that the 8th respondent illegally conducted the requisition meeting on 17-09-2009 while nominating Sri Nandhyala Sita Ramaiah “the proposed party who now came on record as 9th respondent” as Sarpanch for that requisition meeting and passed eight resolutions which includes the constitution of the works committee and nominated the 9th respondent as the President of that works committee while requesting the concerned to issue the work order in the name of Sri Nandhyala Veera Venkata Sathya Narayana Murthy. 10. Further it is averred that the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary illegally conducted the requisition meeting on 17-09-2009 without serving the requisition issued to conduct meeting and without serving the copy of agenda of the requisition meeting on the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch or on (i)Sri Kola Srinivasa Rao, (ii) Sri Mukku Ramulu, (iii)Sri.Jakka Pandu Ranga Rao and (iv) Smt.Velala Rama Mani, who are the members of the 7th respondent Gram Panchayat. 11. Further it is stated that the action of the respondents with particular reference to respondent Nos.7 and 8 in conducting the requisition meeting on 17-09-2009 without issuing any notice or without serving any copy of the agenda of the requisition meeting on the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and the above referred four members is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to various provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. 12. It is also stated that Section 31 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) that the Panchayat Secretary had to convene the meetings of the Gram Panchayat with the approval of or on the direction of the Sarpanch only. The proviso to Section 31 says that where the Sarpanch fails to give his approval for convening the meeting, the Panchayat Secretary shall himself convene the meeting in the manner prescribed. In the case on hand, it is not known who issued that requisition for conducting the meeting and what is the date of requisition and for which purpose the requisition meeting is to be conducted and what are the agenda items of that requisition meeting. Admittedly, no requisition for conducting the meeting was issued to the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and no notice was issued and no copy of the agenda was served on the petitioners and the above referred four members of the 7th respondent Gram Panchayat, hence, the question of giving approval or not by the Sarpanch does not arise at all. As such the impugned action of the respondents 7 and 8 had to be set aside. 13. Further it is averred that rules in the name of proceedings of Gram Panchayat and their committees were framed through G.O.Ms.No.227 dated 13-04-1995, wherein Rule 3(1) says that no meeting of Gram Panchayat shall be held unless notice of the day and time when and the place where the meeting to be held and of the business to be transacted, thereat had been given at least three (3) clear days before the day of meeting. Whereas Section 4 (1) says that the Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, shall, on the requisition in writing of not less than 1/3rd of the members thereon the Gram Panchayat, convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat provided the requisition specified the period within which and the purpose for which the meeting is to be held. The requisition shall be given atleast three (3) clear days before the day of the meeting. Even though the above said rules stipulates that a requisition for conducting the meeting shall be given at least three (3) clear days before the day of the meeting, no such requisition at all was given to the Sarpanch, Upa- Sarpanch and no agenda of the requisitioned meeting was also given to the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and the members of the 7th respondent referred above, as such the proceedings conducted on 17-09-2009 are liable to be set aide on the ground that the impugned action is in violation of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.227 dated 13-04-1995. 14. It is also stated that Rule I(2) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Functions of Panchayat Secretary) Rules, 2007 stipulates that the Panchayat Secretary is subordinate to the Gram Panchayat and shall function under the control of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Whereas, Rule I (3) of the said Rules says that the Panchayat Secretary convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat as directed by the Sarpanch. But in the case on hand the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary without issuing any notice and without serving a copy of the agenda to the Sarpanch i.e., the 1st petitioner herein and without taking the approval and without having direction of the Sarpanch conducted the meeting, as such the said meeting is void ab-initio as it does not satisfy the conditions precedent for conducting the meeting of the Gram Panchayat. 15. It is further averred that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18-02-2005 deciding to entrust the works to the Works Committees and in the said GO, the conditions for constitution of works committees are also stipulated. Para 6(c) stipulates that the works committee will be formed by the Gram Panchayat with Sarpanch as Chairman and MPTC members, Gram Panchayat members, Self Help Group Leader will be the members of the committee and due representations of SC and ST members shall be considered and Village Secretary to be the Convener of the Works Committee. But, in the case on hand, the 1st petitioner Sarpanch is not the Chairman of the Works Committee constituted by passing a resolution No.132 dated 17- 09-2009 and there was no representation in the said works committee to the MPTC member or the leader of the Self Help Group, hence, the said resolution is bad for being violative of the provisions of Sections 31, 32 and 37 of the Act and also contrary to the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.227 dated 13-04-1995, G.O.Ms.No.199 dated 18-05-2007, and G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 18-02-2005. 16. Further it is stated that Section 37 of the Act says that every meeting of a Gram Panchayat shall be presided over by the Sarpanch, in his absence, by the Upa-Sarpanch and in the absence of both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, by a member chosen by a meeting to preside for the occasion. But in the case on hand, no notice was issued to the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch and the same is the result of the conspiracy between the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary and the remaining members of Gram Panchayat who are the henchmen of the Z.P.T.C. Member one Sri Mutayala Venkateswara Rao, who is inimical to the petitioners. In fact at the instance of said ZPTC member only the 8th respondent acted in such a manner. It is also relevant to point out that in the resolution No.132 dated 17-09-2009 the seven members of the Panchayat Board resolve to request the concerned to issue Work Order in the name of Mr. Nandyala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy who is none other than the close follower of the said ZPTC member. No more words are needed to explain why the 8th respondent acted in such a manner defeating the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 17. It is also averred that it is relevant to point out that the 8th respondent was made incharge Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat along with three other Gram Panchayats apart from her regular duties as the Panchayat Secretary of Ajjamur Gram Panchayat. Under Section 32 of the Act which deals with the functions of the executive authority, it is the duty of the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary to see that no illegal resolutions are passed. But it is strange to note that in the case of hand, the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary is himself party to the illegally passed resolution, thereby he defeated the purport of Section 32. Hence, the action of the respondents had to be set at naught and if the same is allowed to be continued it will further defeat the provisions of the Act. 18. It is further averred that the presiding over the meeting of the Gram Panchayat is one of the most important functions of Gram Panchayat. However, the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary who is hand in glove with the other members of Gram Panchayat, who are the henchmen of the above said ZPTC member, has virtually nullified the status of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch i.e., the petitioners herein by not serving a copy of the notice of the requisition and a copy of the agenda of the requisitioned meeting. Hence, the same has to be set at naught. 19. Further it is stated that part IX of the Constitution of India was inserted by the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 giving constitutional status to the Panchayat institutions. The Sarpanch who is the head of the Gram Panchayat which had got constitutional status had to conduct the business of the Gram Panchayat and the Upa-Sarpanch had to conduct the proceedings of the Panchayat in the absence of Sarpanch. By virtue of the impugned action of the 8th respondent, who is hand in glove with the other members of the Gram Panchayat, the constitutional and legal status of the petitioners had been reduced to nothing, thereby defeating the spirit of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 20. Further it is stated that with great difficulty the petitioners brought the copies of the resolutions made on 17-09-2009 and this meeting was illegally conducted. It is also further averred that it was stated that on 17-09-2009 at 10.00 a.m., a requisition meeting was conducted in the Gram Panchayat office and as the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch did not attend the said meeting, Nandyala Seetha Ramaiah, the member of VI Ward was nominated as the Sarpanch for this requisitioned meeting and the majority of 7 members decided to conduct the meeting and to approve the resolutions. It is relevant to point out that in the said introductory part of that resolutions, it is not stated who issued the requisition and how many members signed that requisition, what is the date of the requisition and it is silent regarding the agenda items on which resolutions to be passed and it is further silent on the issue whether a notice of said requisition and a copy of agenda of said requisition meeting served on the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and above referred four members of the 7th respondent. The documents substantiate the case of the petitioners. 21. It is also stated that from the above it is clear that the 8th respondent for the reasons best known to her, conducted the requisitioned meeting on 17-09-2009 without the knowledge of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch and other members and even without issuing a notice of the requisition and without serving a copy of the agenda of that requisition meeting on the Sarpanch and Upa- Sarpanch and other members, thereby she breached the provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and Rules made there under. It is difficult to understand what prompted the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary to act in such a manner, which had the effect of breaching the Act and the Rules, made there under and she had to explain the same. 22. Further it is stated that it is also relevant to point out that the petitioners i.e., Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch and the above referred four members of the Gram Panchayat were readily available in Kuppanapudi village as they did not go anywhere for the last 10 days, hence, had there been any notice of the requisition meeting they would have certainly attend the meeting and the Sarpanch would have preside over the meeting. The petitioners came to know about the illegally conducted meeting only on 19-09-2009 when they visited the Gram Panchayat office. 23. It is further averred that the 8th respondent at the instance of ZPTC member Sri Muthyala Venkateswara Rao, who is the political opponent of the petitioners and who is trying his best to create hurdles in the development activities of their Gram Panchayat and who successfully managed the 8th respondent Panchayat Secretary to toe his line, conducted the impugned meeting while giving a go-by to the mandatory procedures and prescriptions of the Act and Rules made there under. By passing the impugned resolutions in the illegally conducted meeting, the 8th respondent facilitated to ground the works which involve valuable public money worth Rs.3,97,000/-. It is also relevant to point out that the 8th respondent by illegally conducting the meeting on 17- 09-2009 completely breached the democratic principles, which are governing for the last 60 years. Thus, it is stated that inasmuch as the said action being not in accordance with law, the writ petition to be allowed. 24. The 9th respondent in para 4 of the affidavit stated that 5th respondent had passed the orders canceling the resolution and the members of the Gram Panchayat without questioning his authority had decided to take back the resolution immediately upon coming to know that the 7th respondent had not followed the due process of law and to that effect a letter dated 10-10-2009 had been addressed to the 7th respondent for conducting a fresh meeting on the very same subject. Further stand had been taken that since the grievance of the petitioners had been resolved, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. 25. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4 certain of the averments had been denied and along with counter-affidavit the report dated 19-09-2009 of the Panchayat Secretary, Kuppanapudi of Akiveedu Mandal, agenda items for conduct of requisition meeting on 17-09-2009, G.O.Ms.No.227, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated 13-04-1995, Roc.No.4549/2009-A2(Pts), dated 29-09-2009 of the District Panchayat Officer, West Godavari, Elugu and report in Roc.No.7/2009, dated 07-10-2009 of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Narasapuram are also placed before this court. 26. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent it is stated that the petitioners were elected as Sarpanch and Upa- Sarpanch for Kuppanapudi Gram Panchayat during the elections conducted in the month of August, 2006. There are 13 members including Sarpanch and certain members had issued a requisition meeting notice and meeting was conducted on 17-09-2009. Further it is averred that as ascertained by the Panchayat Secretary, the 8th respondent and 7 members of Kuppanapudi Gram Panchayat submitted a representation requesting him to convene a meeting in eight agenda items. Thus, the 8th respondent conducted requisition meeting on 17-09-2009 by approving certain agenda items. It is also stated that requisition meeting notice was given by seven members to the Sarpanch on 15-09-2009 and meeting notice was not served on all the members including Sarpanch and Upa- Sarpanch and the requisition meeting held on 17-09-2009 is not a valid one. 27. It is also stated in para 5 of the counter-affidavit that as per G.O.Ms.No.227 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dated 13-04-1995, the Gram Panchayat on requisition of not less than 1/3 members of Sarpanch shall convene requisition meeting. The requisition shall be delivered at the office of the Gram Panchayat during the office hours to the Sarpanch, Executive Authority or any other persons who may then be in- charge of the office, atleast ten clear days before the day of the meeting. In the instant case, requisition notice was given by half of the members on 15-09-2009 and meeting was convened on 17-09-2009 without serving notice to certain members, Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch as such and hence, the meeting and resolutions approved therein are not valid. 28. It is also stated that it is a fact that the Panchayat Secretary had to serve the requisition meeting notice on all members after approval of the Sarpanch, but the Panchayat Secretary report stated that there is no proper coordination between the Sarpanch and members and due to pressure of the members who gave requisition meeting notice, convened meeting on 17-09-2009. 29. It is further stated that in case of emergency, the Sarpanch may convene a meeting on giving a short notice than specified in Sub-Rule of Rule (3) and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 which contemplates that when the Sarpanch fails to act upon within five days of the notice on request to convene a meeting which is placed before him. The meeting may be called on any suitable day within the period mentioned by the members who signed the requisition by issuing notice to these members under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule (3) by giving atleast three clear days notice. 30. It is also stated that on receipt of complaints regarding the said requisition meeting the 4th respondent i.e., District Panchayat Officer, W.G. District, Eluru had directed the 5th respondent i.e., Divisional Panchayat Officer, Narasapuram to enquire into the matter and submit a report. The 5th respondent i.e., Divisional Panchayat Officer, Narasapuram, enquired into the issue and by observing the Rule position opined that the requisition meeting held on 17-09-2009 at Kuppanapudi Gram Panchayat and resolutions passed from 125 to 132 are not valid in view of the above rule position. 31. It is also stated that the requisition meeting itself is not a valid one as the requisition was not submitted to the Sarpanch and by observing the rule position it was declared that the requisition meeting held on 17-09-2009 at Kuppanapudi Gram Panchayat and resolutions passed from 125 to 132 are not valid. As such, the Panchayat Secretary was directed to include the subjects in the general meeting to be convened in future for discussion and place for discussions of the members and to take a decision. 32. It is also further stated that the Panchayat Secretary had to serve the requisition meeting notice on all the ward members with the approval of the Sarpanch. In the instant case, it is clear that the Panchayat Secretary had failed to serve the requisition notice to the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and four other ward members, but the Panchayat Secretary in her report stated that there is no proper co-ordination between Sarpanch and members and due pressure of the members to give requisition meeting notice and convened meeting on 17-09-2009. Further, the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kuppanapudi was warned severely with a direction not to repeat this kind of things in future. 33. Further it is stated that the respondents directed the Gram Panchayat that these respondents directed the Gram Panchayat and Panchayat Secretary to conduct fresh meeting and the items approved in the requisition meeting were to be placed for discussion. In view of the Rule position specified supra, the requisition given on 15-09-2009 and meeting convened on 17-09- 2009 are in violation of the Rules i.e., the Rule regarding to the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and the committees there of may be in G.O.Ms.No.227 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.II) Department dated 13-04-1995. 34. In the light of the clear stand taken there cannot be any doubt whatsoever the meeting convened on 17-09-2009 is not in accordance with law. But however, this will not come in the way of the respondents in convening yet another meeting for this purpose, in accordance with law. 35. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 13, 2009. Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.20651 of 2009 November 13, 2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week. B/o.PN