A no-confidence motion cannot be initiated against the Upa-sarpanch twice within a period of two years: Telangana High Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA W.P.No.127021 Sri Sundara Pandian Kalidasan State of Telangana and Others. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 24.6.2021 THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments Yes 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters Journals Yes 3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment No T.AMARNATH GOUD J 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMRNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION No.12704 OF 2021 24.6.2021 Sri Sundara Pandian Kalidasan State of Telangana and Others. Counsel for Petitioner Sri K. Pradeep Reddy Counsel for the respondents Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana for respondent Nos.7 and 8. HEAD NOTE: Cases referred 1 2011ALD 123 29 SCC 573 3 1998MPLJ 661 42 ALT 296 512 SCC 1 68 SCC 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD WRIT PETITION No.12704 OF 2021 Petitioner has been elected as a Ward Member of 13th Ward of Kallakal Gram Panchayat Toopran Mandal Medak District and also Upa Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat in the general elections held in the month of January 2019. The 4th respondent served a notice No.H 188 2021 dated 27.02.2021 on the petitioner stating that he received a proposal for no confidence motion under Form I dated 19.02.2021 from the Ward Members of Kallakal Gram Panchayat and called a meeting on 17.3.2021 at 11.00 AM at the office of the Gram Panchayat for consideration of the proposed no confidence motion. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5804 of 2021 contending that the said notice was not in compliance with the Section 30 and of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act 2018 and Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules relating to motion of no confidence against the Upa Sarpanch in G.O.Ms.No.200 PR & RD dated 28.4.1998. In the said Writ Petition initially an interim order was passed on 15.3.2021 staying the further proceedings in pursuance of the said notice and ultimately the said Writ Petition has been Allowed vide orders dated 28.4.2021 giving liberty to the respondents to proceed to take steps in accordance with law. 4 The petitioner further submits that thereafter the 4th respondent RDO again issued the impugned notice No.H 824 2021 dated 26.5.2021 under Form IV under Section 30of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act 2018 and called for a meeting on 15.6.2021 at 11.30 AM for considering the alleged no confidence motion and the same was served on the petitioner on 27.5.2021. The Revenue Divisional Officer Toopran Division Medak District the 4th respondent herein filed counter stating that on 25.5.2021 twelve members of the Gram Panchayat Kallakal have submitted the proposal of no confidence motion against the petitioner along with Form No.1 and he having satisfied that the said notice was in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.4.2002 issued the impugned notice to the petitioner in Form IV on 26.5.2021. He further submitted that in the earlier round of litigation this Hon’ble Court Allowed Writ Petition No.5804 of 2021 vide orders dated 28.4.2021 setting initial notice of no confidence motion No.H 188 2021 dated 27.02.2021 but gave liberty to the respondents that even if they are so advised they shall proceed to take steps in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the Memorandum of No confidence motion submitted by the 12 members of the Gram Panchayat kallakal on 25.5.2021 is based on the earlier 5 proposals of no confidence motion which were stalled by this Court pending the above Writ Petition and hence the allegation of the petitioner that the members have submitted the proposal of no confidence motion 2nd time against the petitioner within a period of two years from the 1st proposals and the same is not permitted under law is totally false and baseless. Hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. While the matter stood thus two ward members of Kallakal village by name T.Raju Yadav and Y. Nagaraju filed I.A.No.21 seeking to implead as respondent Nos.7 and in this Writ Petition. They have been accordingly. Their contention is more or less on the same lines of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 contended that the first meeting itself was not convened for no confidence motion when the 1st notice was served on the petitioner at the stage of serving of Form IV notice the petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim stay as such the ground raised by the petitioner cannot be made applicable. The petitioner wrongly interpreted the G.O.Ms.No.200 PR and RD dated 28.4.1998 and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Mr.Pradeep Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 30 1) of Telangana State Panchayat Raj Act 2018 prohibits the second no confidence motion before expiry of two years from the date of first no confidence motion. He would further submit that Rule 2 of the Rules relating to no confidence motion in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.4.1998 which are being adopted till date contemplates that no notice of motion shall be made against the same person more than once during his term of office. He would further submit that the earlier no confidence motion dated 27.02.2021 was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.5804 of 2021 vide orders dated 28.4.2021 and hence issuance of the impugned notice dated 26.5.2021 which is within the duration of two years from the date of earlier notice is not permitted under Section 30 of the T.S.Panchayat Raj Act. The learned counsel relied on the ratio laid down in Torlakonda Mangamma Vs. The Government of A.P1. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat would submit that the earlier notice of no confidence motion against the petitioner was set aside due to which meeting to consider the no confidence motion against the petitioner could not be conducted and the process of No Confidence Motion could not be completed and the same is now set in motion as required by twelve members of the Gram Panchayat in their proposal dated 25.5.2021. The present proceedings are continuation of the earlier no confidence motion proceedings but not a fresh one. She relied on the following judgments: Pratap Chndra Mehta V. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh2 Muku Bai V. State of M.P3 V. 1 2011ALD 123 29 SCC 573 Subba Rao V. Revenue Divisional Officer Medak4 and Bhanumati V. State of U.P.5. 10. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana learned senior counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents submitted that it is not direct election and it is indirect election where all Ward members elected petitioner as Upa Sarpanch and now they lost confidence and moved no confidence and further argued that since the first meeting was not convened to move the no confidence motion against the petitioner the impugned notice in this Writ Petition is to be treated as the first one. He relied on the ratio laid down in Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary V. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited6 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: the democratic 18. In Pratap Chandra Mehta V. State Bar Council of M.P. 9 SCC 573 and in Usha Bharti V. State of U.P. 2014) 7 SCC 663 the concept of democratic principles institutions have been discussed. In a democratic institution confidence is the foundation on which the superstructure of democracy is built. The bedrock of democratic accountability rests on the confidence of the electorate. If the representative body does not have confidence in the office bearer whom they have selected democracy demands such officer to be removed in a democratic manner. 19. A cooperative society registered on cooperative principles of democracy equity equality and solidarity. Democratic accountability mutual trust fairness impartiality unity of agreement of feeling among the delegates cooperativeness etc . are some of the cardinal dimensions of the cooperative principles. A body built on such principles cannot be led by a captain in whom the co sailors have no confidence. 20. In Bhanumati V. State of U.P. 12 SCC 1 at para 67 this Court elaborated on this principle: “67. Any head of democratic institution must be prepared to face the test of confidence. Neither the democratically elected Prime Minister of the country nor 3 1998MPLJ 661 42 ALT 296 512 SCC 1 68 SCC 1 the Chief Minister of a State is immune from such a test of confidence under the Rules of Procedure framed under Articles 118 and 208 of the Constitution. Both the Prime Minister of India and Chief Ministers of several States heading the Council of Ministers at the Centre and in several States respectively have to adhere to the principles of collective responsibilities to their respective houses in accordance with Articles 75(3) and 164 of the Constitution.” 11. Before adverting to the rival contentions I deem it apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of law which read as under: 12. Section 30 of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act 2018: Motion of no confidence in Upa Sarpanch: 1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Upa Sarpanch may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion in such form and to such authority as may be prescribed singed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat and further action on such notice shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Provided that no confidence of motion under this Section shall be made within two years of the date of assumption of office by the Upa Sarpanch. Provided further that no such notice shall be made against the same Upa Sarpanch more than twice during his term of office and the second no confidence motion shall not be initiated before the expiry of two years from the date of first no confidence motion. Rule No.2 of the Rules relating to 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. 2. A notice of the intention to make the motion shall be made in Form 1 in Form 11 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 9 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. 13. As per Section 30 of the T.S.Panchayat Raj Act 2018 Motion of no confidence in Upa Sarpanch President or Chairperson shall be moved by not less than one half of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat. In the case on hand 12 out of 14 members have moved the no confidence motion against the petitioner and they have given their representation in Form I. So there is no dispute with regard to quorum. 14. No doubt the respondents have power to move no confidence but the requirements need to be fulfilled. The Act does not speak about passing of no confidence motion. It says about moving of no confidence only. Once a requuisition is moved by members seeking to move no confidence motion itself means Section 30 came into play and the result i.e. whether such motion moved is passed or not in the meeting is immaterial. 15. Once no confidence motion has been moved and has been defeated because of legal requisites it is to be deemed that the no confidence motion is moved. There is no ambiguity in the Section and Rules. The objective of the provision clearly is to prevent frivolous No Confidence Motions repeatedly within one year if the earlier one has not even moved or has been defeated because of want of legal requisites. 16. A glance at the impugned notice shows that it was admittedly issued by the RDO for the second time. The significant words in the second proviso to Section 30 of the Act clearly indicates that no such notice shall be made against the same Upa Sarpanch more than twice during his term of office and the second no confidence motion shall not be initiated before the expiry of two years from the date of first no confidence motion. 17. The official respondents have completely lost sight of the said provision and exercised their power arbitrarily. This power has to be exercised in true letter and spirit and with all care but not in a casual manner. 18. For the first time the no confidence motion notice in W.P.No.58021 was issued on 19.02.2021 in Form I and the meeting was scheduled on 17.3.2021. Whereas the impugned notice in this Writ Petition was issued on 26.5.2021 for the second time stating that a no confidence motion will be moved on 15.6.2021 which is within a period of two years from the first notice. No confidence motion can be moved provided the requirements provided under the statute are fulfilled. But at the same time there is legal statutory restriction and limitation. 19. The observation of this Court in W.P.No.5804 of 2021 “However liberty is given to the respondents that even if they are so advised they shall proceed to take steps in accordance with law” have to be read in consonance with Section 30 and the Rules applicable. But it does not mean this Court has granted permission to respondents to act in contravention to the Statute. There is no ambiguity in the observation made by this Court in the order stated supra. 20. Once action is initiated under Section 30 it means that the action is put in motion. It is not necessary that the entire action is to be completed. Section 30 does not speak about whether the no confidence motion is passed or not. On the other hand the Rule only contemplates the procedure to be adopted. Since the action initiated under section 30 is set aside in the earlier Writ Petition it has to be treated as first instance. In view of the proviso to Section 30 two years period has to be followed for moving second no confidence motion. Since the first notice of no confidence motion is set aside the respondents need to wait for two years as per the proviso to Section 30. The respondents have not consideration the central idea of Section 30 of the Act as stated supra. 22. The judgments relied on by the learned Government pleader as well as the learned counsel for the impleading respondents have no relevance to resolve the issue involved in the case on hand. 23. For the above reasons this Court is of the firm view that the respondents have not followed the legal position in strict compliance and accordingly the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned notice issued by 4th respondent on 26.05.2021 is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. In the result the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. T. AMARNATH GOUD J. L.R. Copy be marked. B o Kvsn 

Summary: A no-confidence motion for the second time, cannot be initiated against the same Upa-Sarpanch before the expiry of two years from the date of the first no-confidence motion as per section 30 of the T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. This was held by The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.  Amarnath Goud who said, “no such notice shall be made against the same Upa-Sarpanch more than twice during his term of office and the second no-confidence motion shall not be initiated before the expiry of two years from the date of first no-confidence motion.” in Sri Sundara Pandian Kalidasan Vs. State of Telangana and Others [ W.P.No.12704 of 2021]. The brief facts of the case are, the petitioner was elected as the Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in 2019. On 27.02.2021, respondent no.4 served a notice to the petitioner informing about the No-confidence motion. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming that such a motion was not in accordance with section 30 of the T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. However, such a petition was dismissed and the court gave liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law. The respondents again issued a notice dated 26.5.2021 informing the petitioner about the no-confidence motion. The petition has yet again filed a petition before the High court praying for the petition to be dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second no-confidence motion was violative of Rule 2 of the Rules relating to no confidence motion in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.4.1998 where it mentions that a no-confidence motion can be initiated against a person only once during his term. He also submitted that section 30 of the act prescribes a two-year period, on completion of which, a second no-confidence motion can be re-instated. The counsel for the respondent contends that the first no-confidence motion dated 27-02-2021 and the second no-confidence motion dated 26-05-2021 are the same motions which are planned and executed in a longer time frame and not fresh ones. The learned judge after listening to the arguments of both the parties, adjudged that the no-confidence motion passed during the second time was not in accordance with law. To arrive at this, the Hon’ble judge analyzed the relevant provisions in law. Section 30 of the act deals with the ‘moving’ and not ‘passing’ of the no confidence motion. “Once action is initiated under Section 30, it means that the action is put in motion. It is not necessary that the entire action is to be completed. Section 30 does not speak about whether the no confidence motion is passed or not. On the other hand, the Rule only contemplates the procedure to be adopted. Since the action initiated under section 30 is set aside in the earlier Writ Petition, it has to be treated as first instance”.