IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 24913 & 24927 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No: 24913 of 2008: Between: Bommisetti Hanumantha Rao S/o Narayana R/o Pocharam Village, Garla Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Khammam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem Division, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaringthe impugned proceedings Rc. No. J/1704/2008 dt 27-10-2008 and the proposed meeting scheduled on 14-11-2008 against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to mandatory procedure prescribed in Subsection (1) of Section 245 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1984 and rule 2 of motion of no-confidence made in GOMS No. 200, dt 28-04- 1998 and set a side the same, by declaringthat the petitioner is entitled to continue as Mandal Parishad President of that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Mandal Parishad President of Garla Mandal, Khammam District and pass such order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstancesof the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. WRIT PETITION No: 24927 of 2008: Between: Tejavath Rupa Bai W/o. Chilakababu R/o. Anjanapuram Village, Garla Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Khammam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem Division, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the impugned proceedings Rc No. J/1704/2008 dt. 27-10-2008 and the proposed meeting scheduled on 14-11-2008 against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to mandatory procedure prescribed in Subsection (1) of Section 245 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1894 and rule 2 of motion of no -confidence made in G.O.Ms.No. 200 dt. 28-4- 1998 and set aside the same by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Mandal Parishad President of Garla Mandal, Khammam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 27-10-2008 in Form-V is impugned in these writ petitions by the President and Vice-President of Garla Mandal Praja Parishad, Khammam District, on the following grounds. (1) that, as required under the rules, the notice of intention to move the resolution of no-confidence was not delivered by two of the members concerned; (2) that individual notices in Form-V should have been issued separately with regards the President and Vice-President and issuance of a common notice for both of them is illegal. 2. The records have been produced and it is evident on a perusal thereof that there is compliance with Rule 2 of the Rules relating to the motion of no-confidence against upa-sarpanch of the gram panchayat, or president or vice-president of mandal parishad, or chairperson or vice-chairperson of the Zilla Parishad, as notified in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28-04-1998, issued under the Andhra Pradesh Panchyat Raj Act, 1994 ( for short – ‘the Act’), 3. Rules 2 and 3 of the aforementioned Rules are relevant for the purpose of this case and read as under: “2. A notice of the intention to make the motion shall be made in Form-I, in Form-II and in Form-III annexed to these rules either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad, or Zilla Parishad as the case may be, together with a copy of the proposed motion, and shall be delivered in person by any two of the members who signed such notice, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-collector or Assistant Collector as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the case of Upa- Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat, or President and Vice- President of a Mandal Parishad; or to the District Collector in the case of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Zilla Parishad, as the case may be: Provided that no notice of motion under this rule shall be made within two years of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved; Provided further that no such notice shall be made against the same person more than once during his term of office. Explanation :-- For the purpose of this rule, it is hereby clarified that: (i) In the determination of one-half of the total number of members under this rule any fraction below 0.5 shall be ignored and any fraction of 0.5 or above 0.5 shall be taken as one. (ii) the expression "total number of members" means all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned inclusive of the Sarpanch, President or Chairperson, as the case may be, but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such member at the time of meeting: Provided that a suspended office bearer or member shall also be taken into consideration for computing the total number of members and he shall also be entitled to vote in a meeting held under this rule. 3. The concerned officer specified in Rule 2 (here-in-after 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 Mandal Parishad or at the Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under Rule 2 was delivered to him. He shall give to every member of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad, 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 meeting of such meeting in Form IV, 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. Every such notice shall be delivered as specified below, namely :-- (a) by giving or tendering such notice to such member, or (b) if such member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or (c) if such member does not reside in the Gram Panchayat area or Mandal Parishad area, or within the District and if his address is known to the District Panchayat Officer/Chief Executive Authority/Collector or the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to be elsewhere, by sending the same to him through registered post with Acknowledgement due; or (d) if none of the means aforesaid is available or if the persons referred to in clauses (a) and (b) refuse to receive the notice, by affixing the same at some conspicuous part of his place of residence or business: Provided that where the holding of such meeting is stayed by an order of a court, it shall be adjourned, and the said officer shall hold the adjourned meeting on a date not later than thirty days from the date on which he received the intimation about the vacation of stay and after giving to the members, a notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting of such adjourned meeting.” 4. Rule 2 of the Rules aforementioned requires a notice of the intention to make the motion to be made in Form-II either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, and is required to be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Mandal Parishad. There is no complaint of non-compliance of this requirement. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that this notice has not been delivered to the Revenue Divisional Officer in person by any two of the members who signed such notice. Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the President and the Vice-President are required to be intimated of the fact that the said notice has been delivered by two of the members who made the motion. A plain reading of the aforementioned Rules do not stipulate any such requirement. All that the Rules require is that a copy of notice of the intention to make the motion in Form-II, along with a copy of the proposed motion, shall be delivered in person by any two of the members who signed such notice to the Revenue Divisional Officer. If any dispute arises as to whether the said notice in Form-II, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Mandal Parishad, along with a copy of the proposed motion, was delivered by any two of the members who signed such notice or not, the records would disclose compliance or non- compliance with these statutory requirements. 6. In the case on hand, the records have been produced and Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, on a perusal of the record, would agree that the records do show the notice having been delivered by two of the members who signed the notice expressing their intention to make the motion of no-confidence. 7. The other objection relates to serving of individual notices on the President and Vice-President in Form-V, which reads thus: Form-V To Sri/Smt./Kum ......................... Member of .........................Mandal Parishad. Sir/Madam, Whereas a notice of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the Vice- President/President of ......................... Mandal Parishad has been delivered to me as required under sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act No.13 of 1994). Now, therefore, under sub-section (1) of Section 245 of the said Act, I hereby give notice that a meeting of the Mandal Parishad shall be held at the office of the Mandal Parishad on ......................... (date) at ......................... (time) for considering the said motion of no-confidence. A copy of the proposed motion of no-confidence is enclosed. (Signature) Revenue Divisional Officer Sub-Collector Assistant Collector. Encl:1 8. Rule 3 of the aforementioned Rules requires the concerned officer, (in the case on hand the Revenue Divisional Officer), to convene and preside over a meeting, for the consideration of the motion, at the office of Mandal Parishad. It also requires him to give every member of the Mandal Parishad notice in Form-V. The said notice makes a reference to the fact that the notice of the intention to make a motion had been delivered to him under Section 245 (2) of the Act and that he was giving notice of the meeting of the Mandal Parishad to be held on a particular date, time and venue for the no- confidence motion to be moved. 9. While arguments have been advanced both for and against the requirement of the notice in Form-V being given separately and individually with respect to the President and the Vice-President, prima facie, there is nothing in the rules which would mandate such separate notices being given. In any event, this question has become academic in view of the fact that the date of the meeting, mentioned in Form-V issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, is 14-11-2008 and, in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 13-11-2008, the said meeting could not be held. Since a notice in Form-V is required to be issued afresh, it would suffice if the Revenue Divisional Officer is required to issue separate and individual notices to each of the members regarding the motion of no-confidence to be considered against the President and the Vice- President of the Mandal Praja Parishad. Needless to state that, after issuance of such notice, the requirement of the meeting being held will be complied with by the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer at the earliest. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 8th December 2008 CVRK