Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Tiparthi Chandra Mouli vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 11 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)ALD431, 1998(1)ALT574, 1998 A I H C 3839, (1998) 1 ANDHLD 431 (1998) 1 ANDH LT 574, (1998) 1 ANDH LT 574
Author: J. Chelameswar
Bench: J. Chelameswar
ORDER
1. The petitioner is the elected president of Velgatur Mandal Parishad. He was elected in March, 1995. It appears that on 21-3-1997 some members of the Mandal Parishad sought to move a 'No Confidence Motion' against the petitioner, which was rejected by the 3rd respondent by his endorsement No.E/466/97, dated 21-3-1997.
2. Later, one Mr. V. Narsimha Reddy, sought to move another No Confidence Motion and consequent upon the said move, the 3rd respondent issued notice of motion of no confidence in E/466/97 dated 30-3-1997, fixing the dale of motion as 15-4-1997. Questioning the said notice, the petitioner, it appears moved the Government and the Government by its Proceedings dated 10-4-1997 suspended the proceedings of the 3rd respondent mentioned above.
3. It appears that again notice was issued by the third respondent on 15-4-1997 calling for the meeting on 5-5-1997 for the purpose of considering a No Confidence Motion against Ihe petitioner. It is this notice which is challenged in [he present Writ Petition.
4. The third respondent filed a counter-affidavit Six persons filed Implead Pelition-WPMP No.25336 of 1997 which was ordered on 5-11-1997.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Ihe proviso to Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Written notice of intention shall be made against the same person notmore than once during his term of office and in the instant case, as No Confidence Motion was moved earlier by the first implead petitioner herein, which was rejected by the 3rd respondent by his Proceedings dated 23-3-1997 mentioned earlier the present No Confidence Motion would be the second one. which is prohibited under the Second Proviso to Section 245 of the Act.
6. Secondly the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Ihe suspension orders passed by the Honourable Minister suspending the second notice of No-Confidence Motion earlier, the present notice is totally illegal,
7. For the sake of convenience, I shall deal with the second submission. A copy ofthe order of the Honourable Minister dated 10-4-1997 by which the notice of the 3rd respondent dated 30-3-1997 was suspended is placed before me. The contents of the said order are as follows:
"Government of Andhra Pradesh panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mdl.II) Dept. Nicnet message: 4256/MdI-II/97-l, dated 10-4-1997.
From The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mdl-II)Dept.;
A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.
To The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapally, Karimnagar Dist.
According to Rule (3) of the Rules relating to Motion of No-Confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/President of Mandal Parishad or Vice-Chairman/Chairman of ZillaParisliad under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 245 issued in G.O.Ms.No.137, PR & RD (Mdl.II) Dept. 27-3-1997 a notice shall be given not less than 15 clear days excluding date of notice and date ofthe proposed meeting. It has been brought to the notice of the Government that in the case of No-Confidence Motion against the President, Mandal Parishad Velgatoor, Karimnagar District, a notice was served only on 4-4-1997 to the Members of Velgatoor Mandal Parishad for convening a meeting on 15-4-1997 by the RDO Peddapally. It is clear that the RDO failed to follow the requirements laid down under the Rules and not allowed the 15 days clear time for serving of notice to the members before the meeting is fixed. Therefore, the notice issued by the RDO in his Ref.No.E/466/97 dated 30-3-1997 and served on 4-4-1997 is hereby suspended.
The RDO, Peddapally, Karimnagar District is hereby directed to reexamine the entire issue and take necessary action keeping in view the aforesaid rules.
Copy to go in confirmation.
S. Anwar Principal Secretary next time to Government."
8. From a reading of the above, it appears that the above order was passed suspending the notice of the 3rd respondent dated 30-3-1997 on the ground that the said notice was served on the Writ Petitioner on 4-4-1997 and, therefore; the requirement of the Rule 3 (framed in G.O.Ms.No.137, P.R. and R D. (Mandal) Department, dated 27-3-1997) mandating issuance of notice of not less than 15 days, excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting is not complied with. Further the Minister in his order clearly directed the 3rd respondent to re-examine the entire issue and take necessary action keeping in view the aforesaid rules. Therefore, factually, there was nothing pending before the Minister after the above mentioned order was passed. Whether the order is passed either by a competent or incompetent authority - I am not concerned in this Writ Petition, as it is not one of the issues presented before me. The fact remains that even assuming that the Minister iscompetent to pass such an order, he passed the order and nothing was pending with the Minister after the above mentioned order, as it can be seen from the tenor of the order. In view of the orders passed by the Minister, the impugned notice is the consequential notice issued by the third respondent pursuant to the orders of the Minister. Therefore, on this ground, the impugned notice cannot be found fault with.
9. Coming to the first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner : the third respondent in his counter stated with respect to the first notice of No-Confidence Motion dated 27-3-1997 referred to above by the Writ Petitioner as follows:
"On 21-3-1997 one Vemela Narsimha Reddyand 7 others including Sri D. Venkataiah had given a notice of their intention of expressing of want of confidence in Sri T. Chandramouli, President Mandal Parishad, Velgatoor, was rejected because the rules under Section 245 of the A.P.P.R are not promulgated in that order rules GO. Ms. No.137, PR & RD (M.II) dated 27-3-1997 are promulgated as on 27-3-1997 and published in the Gazette on 29-3-1997."
It can be seen from the above that initially the first No-Confidence Motion notice dated 21-3-1997 moved by one Mr. V.Narasimha Reddy and others was rejected by the third respondent, on the ground that the rules contemplated under the Section 245 of the Act were not by then promulgated. In fact, the said rules were promulgated on 21-3-1997 and published in the AP. Gazette on 21-3-1997. Whether the notice of No-Confidence Motion can be rejected on the ground of absence of rules contemplated under Section 245 is not a matter which is in issue before me. Factually the move was aborted for the reasons, which can be either legal or illegal.
10. In the circumstances of the case, can it be said that the present/impugned notice is the second attempt to move No-Confidence Motion against the same person, and, therefore, hit by the second proviso to Section 245 of the Act.
11. The language in Section 245 requires examination to decide this issue. Section 245 of the Act reads as follows insofar as it is relevant for the purpose of this case.
"245. Motion of No Confidence in Upa-Sarpanch President or Chairman :--(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Upa-Sarpanch or President or Vice-President or Chairman or Vice-Chairman 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, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad, or as the case may be the Zilla Parishad and further action on such notice shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed:
Provided that no notice of motion under this Section 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."
12. On an analysis of this section and its language, it can be seen that the motion expressing want of confidence against the incumbent of any of the offices mentioned in the said section can be made :- firstly, by giving written notice of intention to move such motion; secondly, such notice shall be in the prescribed form; thirdly, such notice shall be addressed to the authority as may be prescribed; and fourthly, such notice shall be signed by not less than one half of the total number of members of the corresponding Body.
13. The said Section mandates that once such notice of intention is given to the prescribed authority in compliance with the above conditions, further action on such notice shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules.
14. At this stage proviso (2) requires examination. No doubt the language of the proviso says that 'No such notice shall be made.' Once such notice of intention is received by the competent authority, by virtue of Rule 3, the competent authority is required to issue further notice convening the meeting for consideration of motion.
15. The notice of intention contemplated under Section 245 may reach its logical end or may not, depending on the facts whether the notice does comply with various stipulations made in the said Section or not. Such being the case, a defective notice of intention to move No Confidence Motion moved once would enable the incumbent of the Office to continue for the full term-irrespective of the fact whether he enjoys the confidence of the Body which he is expected to enjoy under the provisions of the Act, which according to me is certainly not the intention of the Legislature. One may imagine the situation, in a given case, where the incumbent of the office at a given point of time enjoying the confidence of the Body, may himself engineer a defective notice of intention to move No Confidence Motion. Once such notice fails in view of the defect, the incumbent would continue to hold the office for the entire period not withstanding the fact that he might lose the confidence of the Body subsequently. This would be an absurdity.
16. To my mind the intention of the Legislature, in inserting the proviso is to provide stability of the office and avoidance of frequent No Confidence Motions, which render these institutions too unstable. To see that public good is not disregarded in the conflict of rival parties.
17. However it must be remembered that it is only a check on the misuse of the right to move a No Confidence Motion but not a substitute for the confidence itself.
18. In all the representative democratic Institution under the Constitution, which include Panchayat Raj Institutions, the continuance of the persons in the Executive Offices depends on their continuing enjoyment of the support of the Body which elected them to the particular office. To hold, otherwise wouldbe a mockery of the representative form of democracy.
19. Logically it follows that the notice contemplated under Section 245 Second proviso, is a valid notice of No Confidence Motion which reached iis culmination at a properly convened meeting, where the motion is either carried or rejected and not a mere notice of intention to move a No Confidence Motion
20. Therefore the notice dated 21-3-1997 is not a notice within the meaning of Second proviso to Section 245 and hence the prohibition contained in the said proviso would not come into operation with regard to the present/impugned notice.
21. No other ground is raised before me.
22. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.