THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 28989 of 2009 Dated: 22-4-2010 Between: Chagarlamudi John …Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others …Respondents ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The Form IV notice dated 17-12-2009 issued by the 1st respondent for considering a motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner, the Upa-Sarpanch of Chodavaram Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District is assailed by the petitioner, the Upa-Sarpanch. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Chodavaram Gram Panchayat on 2-8-2006. The election to the post of Upa- Sarpanch was conducted, whereat the petitioner was elected as Upa- Sarpanch and assumed the office after taking oath, on 23-8-2006. The respondents 2 to 11 herein who are Ward members of the Gram Panchayat submitted an application in Form-I to the 1st respondent on 5-12-2009 proposing moving a motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner. The 1st respondent entertained the application and issued a notice in Form-IV dated 17-12-2009 scheduling the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 4-1-2010, to consider the motion. This Form-IV notice issued by the 1st respondent is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the proviso to Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2009 (AP Act 1 of 2009) has substituted the period of two years occurring in the principal Act by the expression ‘four years’ and therefore no motion expressing want of confidence could be moved within four years from the date of assumption of office. In complementarity with the amendment to Section 245, the Rules relating to motion of no-confidence against Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, or President or Vice President of Mandal Parishad, or Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Zilla Parishad (issued in G.O.Ms.No. 200 PR & RD (Mdl.I) department, dated 28-04-1998) were amended in G.O.Ms.No. 244 P R & RD (Mdl.II-A) department dated 4- 8-2009 substituting the two years period specified in the proviso to Rule 2 of the Rules with the period of four years. In W.P.No. 25162 of 2009 G.O.Ms.No. 244 was challenged as ultra vires the provisions of Section 245 of the Act on a misconception that the Act was not amended. The Act was, in fact, amended prior to the amendment of the rules and the Rules amended in G.O.Ms.No. 244 were therefore inconformity and complementarity with Section 245 of the Act, as amended. On this analysis, W.P.No. 25162 of 2009 has been dismissed by the judgment of this Court today. In Writ Petition No. 25162 of 2009 an interim order was granted suspending the operation of G.O.Ms.No. 244 (amending the Rules). The 1st respondent under a misconception that since the amended Rule (in G.O.Ms.No.244) was suspended by this Court, the old Rule which prescribed limitation of a period of two years for moving a motion for want of confidence was operative perhaps permitted the process of the motion expressing want of confidence. This assumption by the 1st respondent is misconceived, as the amendment to the Act was in operation and the Act enjoins a prohibition against moving a motion expressing want of confidence before the expiry of a period of four years of term, under the provisions of the Act. In any event the Form-IV notice dated 17-12-2009 issued by the 1st respondent, on the basis of a memorandum submitted by respondents 2 to 11 is illegal and unsustainable, in view of the provisions of Section of 245 of the Act, as amended by AP Act 1 of 2009 as well as inconsistent with the Rules, as amended in G.O.Ms.o. 244 sated 4-8-1998. Accordingly the impugned notice in Form-IV dated 17-12-2009 issued by the 1st respondent is quashed and the writ petition is allowed as above. There shall however, be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 22nd April, 2010. GRR