Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Gogineni Koteswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 13 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)ALD462, 1999(3)ALT496
Author: Vaman Rao
Bench: Vaman Rao
ORDER
Vaman Rao, J
1. The facts relating to Writ Petition No.21223 of 1997 fall in narrow compass, which may be stated briefly as follows:
2. The petitioner was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Muppala Mandal, Guntur District in the election held on 18-3-1995. The motion of no confidence against the petitioner was presented to the third respondent on 11-8-1997 signed by 8 members of Mandal Parishad which consisted of 1 1 members. The 2nd respondent (District Collector, Guntur) convened a meeting of Mandal Parishad on 2-9-1997 to consider the said motion of no-confidence in accordance with Section 245 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') contemplates that if a motion is carried with the support of2/3rds of total number of Members against the Mandal Praja Parishad President, the Government shall by notification remove him from office. In this case, the total strength of the Mandal Praja Parishad members was 11 and 2/3rds thereof would be 7.33. Under explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules relating to motion of no-confidence in Upa-sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/Presidcnt of Mandal Parishad or Vice-Chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishad under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 245 of the Act (for short 'the Rules'), any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one. Thus, for the motion to be carried, it shall have to be supported by 8 members.
2(i). In the meeting held on 2-9-1997, only 7 members were present and as such there was no quorum for the meeting. Rule 7 of the Rules postulates that if there is no quorum the meeting shall be dissolved. Inspite of this specific Rule, the 3rd respondent at the instance of the 4th respondent had convened a meeting in which the no-confidence motion was put to vote and all the 7 members present voted in its favour and the 3rd respondent declared that the motion against the petitioner was carried. A copy of these proceedings was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent, who is the minister for Panchayat Raj and is politically opposed to the petitioner, is bent upon issuing the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the Act for removing the petitioner. Thus, it is claimed that the action of the 3rd respondent in convening the meeting and declaring that the motion was carried is contrary to the Statute and Rules. It is asserted that there was no properly convened meeting in the eye of law. Under" these circumstances, the petitioner prays for declaration and direction as stated above.
3. The 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer filed his counter affidavit with an averment that the action taken by him was in accordance with the statutory provisions and rules. The facts as to convening of the meeting with 7 members and motion having been carried on the basis of the votes of those 7 members and his declaration that the motion was carried are not disputed. It is slated that the 3rd respondent convened the meeting and declared the motion carried in view of the interim orders passed in WP MP No. 12447 of 1997 in Writ Petition No.10255 of 1997 under which the 'explanation' to Rule 2 and Rule 6 of the Rules was directed to be kept in abeyance. Respondent No.3 further asserted that there was quorum for the meeting in as much as 2/3rds of 11 comes to '7.33' which was taken as '7'.
4. The 5th respondent-Sirigir Koteswara Rao in his counter affidavit made various allegations with regard to the conduct of the affairs of the Mandal Praja Parishad by the petitioner by way of refilling certain allegations made in his affidavit which are not relevant and necessary for the purpose of this petition.
It is not disputed that out of 8 members who gave notice of no-confidence motion against the petitioner, 7 attended the meeting on 2-9-1997 and all of them voted for the resolution and accordingly the motion against the President (petitioner) was declared as carried. It is denied that there was no quorum for the meeting and that the meeting ought to have been dissolved. The validity of explanation to Rule 2 and Rule 6 of the Rules promulgated under G.O. Ms.No.137, P.R. & R.D. (Mandal-I) Department dated 27-3-1997 under which a fraction was directed to be treated as 'one' is challenged and it is asserted that the said Rules are beyond the scope of the Act. It is contended that any fraction in computing one-half of the total number of members under Rule 6 and 2/3rds of total number of members under 'Rule 6' has to be ignored. It is stated that the Government issued a Circular No.18577/Mdl.I/97-4, P.R. & R.D. dated 3-9-1997 clarifying that the concerned authorities should not act on the explanation to Rules 2 and 6 till the disposal of Writ Petition No.10255 of 1997 in which the Rules were challenged and in which interim directions were passed. Thus, it is stated that the meeting was validly called and the motion was validly put to vote and carried.
5. Writ Petition No.10255 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner-Karaparthi Kodandarami Reddy- praying for writ of ceritiorari for declaring as ultra vires of the Act and quashing explanation (i) of Rule 2 and explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules relating to moving of no-confidence motions framed under GO Ms No.137 dated 27-3-1997 under Section 245 of the Act.
6. In this case, no no-confidence motion was moved but it is stated by the petitioner in his affidavit that he is a Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency Member of Utukur and Vice-President of C.K. Dinne Mandal in Cuddapah District. It is stated that there are 11 members of the said Mandal Parishad including himself. Shorn of irrelevant allegations, it is stated that as a Member of Mandal Parishad, he is interested in smooth running of Mandal Parishad. It is stated that himself and a majority of members of the Parishad have no confidence in the President of the Mandal Parishad because of various actions and omissions mentioned by him in the affidavit and that they are desirous of moving a motion of no-confidence against the president. It is stated that seven out of 11 members including himself have lost confidence in the President. Under Section 245 of the Act, 2/3rds majority of Members is sufficient to pass no-confidence motion and that they have such 2/3rds majority but the Rules contemplate that fraction arrived at while working out 2/3rds majority shall be construed as 'one'. The Rule is challenged as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is stated that the Rules made by the competent authority which is a subordinate legislation must be subservient and should only clarify the statute and should not go beyond the scope of the Act. It is, therefore, stated that explanation to Rules 2 and 6 of the Rules to the extent of providing that the fraction arrived at shall be treated as 'one' must be held to be unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down for not being in consonance with the provisions of the Act and hence this petition.
7. Though in WP No. 21223 of 1997 validity of relevant rules is not specifically challenged, in both the writ petitions, the validity of explanation (1) to Rule 2 and explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules relating to moving of no-confidence motion issued under G.O. Ms. No. 137 has to be considered. Two questions that arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions are : (i) Whether Explanation (1) to Rule 2 and Explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules relating to moving of no-confidence motion issued under G.O. Ms. No.137 are ultra vires the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act and as such invalid on the ground of being ultra vires. The second question that would arise in the facts and circumstances of the Writ Petition No.21223 of 1997 is : Whether no-confidence motion on which '7' members out of 11 members had voted must be held to have been carried?
It is not in dispute that for the purpose of no-confidence motion "total number of members" referred to in Section 245 of the Act means all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned including Sarpanch, President or Chairman and it does not include any vacancies existing in the office of such members at the time of meeting in which no confidence motion was moved. If there is any doubt in this regard, explanation to Section 245 of the Act is sufficient to put at rest any such doubt. This is however subject to the proviso that a suspended office bearer or a member shall also be taken into consideration for computing the total number of members and such suspended members shall also be entitled to vote. In this case, apparently there are no such suspended members and the question of any doubt whether such members are entitled to vote or not does not arise.
8. Section 245 of the Act provides that a motion expressing want of confidence shall be moved by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Mandal Parishad and that it requires to be voted by 2/3rds of members for carrying it. The relevant provisions of Section 245 and the Rules relating to no-confidence motion are reproduced below :
245. Motion of no-confidence in Upa-Sarpanch, President or Chairman Rules relating to motion of no-confide -nce in Upa-Sarpanch of Grama Panchayat or Vice-President/ President of Mandal Parishad or Vice Chairman Chairman of Zilla Parishad under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 245 Sec. 245 (1): A motion ex pressing want of confidence in the Upa-Sarpanch or President or Vice-President or Chairman or Vice-Chairman may be made by giv ing a written notice of inten to move the motion in such form and to such aut- hority as may be prescribed, signed by not less than one- half of the total number of Members of Mandal Paris- had or as the case may be the Zilla Parishad and further action on such notice shall be taken in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Rule 2 :A notice of the intention to make the motion shall be made in from-1,in From-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 Pari -shad as the caw 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 jurtsdiction in the case of Upa Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat; or President or Vice- President of a Mandal Parishad; or to the District Collector in the case of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Zilla Parishad as the case may be:
Sec. 245(2): If the motion carried with the support of not less than two thirds of the total number of mem bers in the case of a Upa- Sarpanch, the Commissio- ner shall and in the case of the President or Vice-Pres ident or the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, the Government shall by notification remove him from office and the resulting vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as a casual vacancy.
Explanation : For the purpose of ihrs rule it is hereby clarified that :(i) ln the determin -ation of one-half of the total number of members under this rule, any fraction arri ved at shall be consi dered as one. Rule 6 : The quorum for such meeting shall be two-thirds of the total number of members.
Explanation : For the purpose of this rule, it is hereby Clarified that in the determination of two- thirds of the total number of members under this rule, any fraction arrived at shall be construed as one.
Rule II : If the motion is carried with the support of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members as laid down under Explanation (ii) under the second proviso 10 Rule 2 above, in the case of a Upa-Sarpanch the Commissioner shall and in the case of the President or Vice- president or the Chairman or Vice- Chairman, the Government shall by notification remove him from office and the resulting vacancy shall be filled in the same manner as a casual vacancy.
9. A rule under delegated legislation can be held to be ultra vires the statutory provisions of the Act if it is shown :
i) that it is beyond the scope of or in excess of rule making power of the delegate conferred under the Act, or
ii) that it is in conflict with or repugnant to any enactment in the Act.
10. In the case of Ajay Canu v. Union of India, , cited by the learned counsel for Respondent No.5, the Supreme Court held that it was well established proposition of law that where a specific power is conferred without prejudice to the generality of the power already specified, the particular power is only illustrative and it did not in any way restrict the general power. In the case before us this question would not arise as may he seen presently.
11. The relevant provision of Section 268 of the Act confers the power on the Government to frame Rules as extracted below for ready references :
"268. Power of Government to make rules for the purpose of this Act :--
(1) The Government shall, in addition to the rule making powers, conferred on them by any other provisions of this Act, have power to make rules generally to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Government may make rules
(i) as to all matters under this Act relating to electoral rolls or the conduct of elections, not expressly provided for in this Act, including deposits to be made by candidates standing for election and the conditions under which such deposits may be forfeited, and the conduct of inquiries and the decision of disputes relating to electoral rolls or elections."
It may be noted that Section 268 of the Act confers powers on the Government to frame the Rules. Under Section 268(1) of the Act, the Government have the power to make rules generally to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. It is significant to note that apart from the general powers under Section 268(1), Section 268(2)(i) specifically empowers the Government to frame Rules in respect of "conduct of inquiries and the decision of disputes relating to electoral rolls or elections." Thus, in this case, there is no scope to contend that the Government have no power to frame the Rules relating to election disputes.
12. The next question is whether the relevant rules are in conflict with statutory enactments?
13. There can be no dispute with the contention that provisions of rules cannot go beyond the scope of the relevant provision in the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in WP No.21223 of 1997 has cited certain authorities in support of this contention and to buttress their case that Rules 2 and 6 referred to above are ultra vires of the Session 245 of the Act.'
14. In the case of Central Bank of India v. Their Workmen, , the Supreme Court has held that a statutory rule cannot enlarge the meaning of the section and that if a rule goes beyond what the section contemplates, the rule must-yield to the statute.
In the case of State of U.P. v. Babu Ram, , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Rules must be consistent with the provisions of the Statute.
Thus, once it is shown that the relevant authority has the power to promulgate the Rules under Statutory Law, such rules will have force as if they are part of the Statute. They can be struck down or ignored when it is found (i) that they are beyond the scope of the relevant provision in the Statute ; or (ii) when it is shown that the Rules are irreconcilably inconsistent with the relevant enactment in the Statute.
15. In the case of Mangilal v. Collector of Bhilwara, , it was found that Rajasthan Panchayat Act did not make any provision providing for dealing with the election disputes. However, Rules were framed (Rajasthan Panchayat Election Rules) providing for adjudicating the disputes relating to elections. The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held that even if there is no provision dealing with election disputes in the Act, the Rules framed for carrying out the purposes of the Act cannot be said to be inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. Thus, in this the case rules relating to motion of no-confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/President of Mandal Parisad or Vice-Chairman/ Chairman of Zilla Parishad under subsections (1) and (2) of Section 245 framed by the Government under G.O. Ms. No. 137 dated 27-3-1997 cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the rule making power of the Government under Section 268 of the Act.
16. Rule 2 of the Rules has been framed on the aspect of dealing with election disputes which provides for the authorities to whom the relevant notice of no-confidence motion may be given.
The relevant Rule 2 postulates that a notice of intention to make no-confidence shall be made in prescribed form 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 the Upa-Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat; or President and Vice-President of Mandal Parishad.
Explanation to this Rule provides that in the determination of one-half of the total number of members under this Rule, any fraction arrived at shall be considered as one.
Sub-section (2) of Section 245 of the Act provides that relative office-bearer shall be removed from office if the motion is carried with the support of not less than 2/3rds of the total number of members. Rule 6 of the Rules has a bearing on this aspect, it provides that quorum for such meeting shall be 2/3rds of the total number of members. Explanation to Rule 6 again postulates that for the purpose of this Rule, in determination of 2/3rds of the total number of members, if any fraction is arrived at, it shall be construed as one. It is significant to mention here that Rule 6 of the Rules provides for quorum for the meeting to be convened for voting of no-confidence motion, but it does not refer to the voting on such motion.
17. Sections 245(1) and 245(2) of the Act contemplates that for giving notice of no-confidence motion, not less than one half of the members shall sign the notice and for passing the motion, not less than 2/3rds of the members should have voted in favour of the motion. In a given case, there is a possibility that considering the effective strength of the Mandal Parishad, one-half or 2/3rds of that number may result in a fraction. It is obvious that there can be no signatures on the notice of motion or there is no possibility of votes on the motion which could match that fraction. To meet these exigencies, the Rule making authority framed these Rules. These Rules, therefore, can be said to have been framed to carry out the purposes of relevant provisions in the Act.
18. Before carrying forward this discussion, it is necessary to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court cited by the learned Counsel for respondent No.5-Sri G. Pedda Babu- during the course of arguments. In the case of Medide Ramaiah v. District Collector, Khammam, (1963) II An.W.R.129, Section 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Grama Panchayat Act (XVII of 1956) providing for moving no-
confidence motion against the Sarpanch came up for consideration. The relevant statutory provision, namely, Section 28 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Grama Panchayat Act is extracted below :
28(1). A motion of no confidence may be moved by any Panch after giving such notice as may be prescribed against the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.
(2). If the motion against the Sarpanch is carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the totai number of Panchas or if the motion against the Upa-Sarpanch is carried by a majority of the total number of Panchas, the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall, within three days of the passing of the motion, resign his office by submitting his resignation to the Gram Panchayat and thereupon his office shall be deemed to be vacant."
Two questions arose in that case. Firstly, whether 2/3rds of majority of members required for carrying motion of no-confidence refers to the sanctioned strength of the Gram Panchayat or the effective strength of the Gram Panchayat. The Division Bench held that it was the effective strength and not the sanctioned strength which was relevant. It may be mentioned here that in this case before us this question does not fall for interpretation in as much as there is a specific provision in Section 245 of the Act. Explanation to Section 245 of the Act reads as follows:
"For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of this section 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 Chairman but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members at the time of meeting:
Provided that a suspended officebearer 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 section."
Thus, in view of this explanation, for the purpose of this case, "total number of members" referred to in Section 245(1) and Section 245(2) of the Act means all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members at the time of the meeting. Another proviso, however, provides that suspended office-bearer or member shall be counted for calculating such total number of members. Thus, any casual vacancy existing, for example, due to death or resignation or due to the fact that elections to certain constituencies have not been held, would not be included in the total number of members for the purpose of no-confidence motion.
The 2nd question which was relevant and was decided in the above Division Bench case refers to consequences of a fraction, resulting while arriving at the number equivalent to 2/3rds of the total number of members in the case of Sarpanch. In that case, the effective strength of the Grama Panchayat was seven and five panchas voted in favour of the motion. It was a clear case of satisfying the requirement of 2/3rds majority without encountering the question of dealing with any fraction. However, the Court observed on hypothetical basis that even if the total sanctioned strength of 8 was taken into account, no-confidence motion which secured five votes could be held to have been carried. In that connection, it was observed that though 2/3rds of eight would be 5 1/3 rd, five would satisfy the requirement as no authority was cited in support of the contention that 1/3rd should be rounded of into 'one'. We may note with great respect that this question really did not arise in that case in view of the finding that what was relevant was the effective strength. Further, in that case, no Rules were framed which permitted raising a fraction into one for the purpose of arriving at the figure of one-half or two-thirds of the effective strength of the total number of members. Further this conclusion was not acted upon by the Bench on other considerations, namely, in the vacancy caused by removal of the Sarpanch another sarpanch was elected and that it was only by an order of stay granted by the Court that he had not been given charge. Thus that case is quite distinguishable on more than one ground.
19. To ascertain whether the Rules mentioned above are consistent with or in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, an illustration may be taken. By way of illustration, if the effective strength of Mandal Parishad is 11, according to Section 245 (1) of the Act, not less than one-half of this number must sign on a requisition for no-confidence motion. It means, not less than 5.5 members should have signed the requisition and for carrying the motion 2/3rds of 11 i.e., not less than 7.33 members should have voted in favour of the motion. Without the aid of the Rules also, it has to be interpreted that when the requirement is that 'not less than' 5.5 members should have signed and not less than 7.33 members should have voted in favour of the motion, the requisition cannot be validly given if it is not signed at least by six members and cannot be validly said to have been passed unless 8 members voted in its favour. This is so because the figure '5' cannot be said to meet the requirement of "not less than 5.5" and "7" cannot be said to meet the requirement of not less than "7.33". It is obvious that by no mathematical theory can "5" be said to be equal to "5.3" or can "7" be said to be equal to "7.33". To avoid such logical calculations and to facilitate the officers entrusted with the work of dealing with such no-confidence motion to immediately come to clear cut conclusions, the Rules provided that when fraction arises in calculating one-half of the members for the purpose of giving notice of motion and 2/3rds of members for the purpose of voting, the fraction shall be treated as "one". Thus, in the above illustration the requirement of "5.5" shall be treated as "6" and "7.33" as "8" by relying upon the explanations to the relevant rules. Thus, it is held that these Rules are not ultra vires of the statutory provisions under Section 245 of the Act and are not otherwise invalid for any other reason.
20. It may also be mentioned here that these Rules are consistent with the general policy of the Legislature as seen from the provisions under Section 245 of the Act and the other Rules framed thereunder. Proviso to Section 245 of the Act postulates that no notice of motion under the Section shall be made within two years of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom motion is sought to be moved. The proviso to Rule 2 of the Rules referred to above contemplates that no such notice shall be made against ihe same person more than once during his term of office. The object appears to be to allow continuity of the office of the incumbent once elected. Section 245 of the Act and Rules 2 and 6 of the Rules if interpreted in a manner which would permit moving the motion even where fractionally less than 1/2 of the effective strength of the members gave a notice, and passing the motion even if fractionally less than 2/3 rds of members voted in favour of the motion, would amount to a concession in favour of moving such motions, which does not seem to fit in with the other relevant provisions mentioned above. Further, passing of no-confidence motion results in disability to an elected office bearer. Provisions in this regard have, therefore, to be interpreted strictly and not liberally.
21. However, when explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules is brought into operation, the required quorum for the meeting would have to be arrived at. As the required number of 2/3rds of 11 has resulted in a fraction, namely 7.33, the fraction 0.33 in the figure '7.33' shall be treated as one. The result would be, for constituting the quorum, 8 members should have attended the meeting, In view of Rule 6, it has to be held that there was no quorum for the meeting in which no-confidence motion was moved in this case against the petitioner in as much as only 7 members attended the said meeting as against required number of '8' members (by raising 0.33 fraction in 7.33 to one)
22. Rule 7 of the said Rules, which is extracted below, provides for the consequences of lack of quorum :
"If within one hour after the lime appointed for the meeting, there is no quorum, the meeting shall stand dissolved and then notice given under Rule 2 shall lapse,"
Thus, the consequences of lack of quorum under Rule 7 ought to have been the dissolution of the meeting in terms of Rule '7' and lapse of the notice given under Rule 2. In this case, the meeting was not dissolved by the 3rd respondent-RDO, In fact, the meeting was held and the motion was put to vote and all the seven members who attended the meeting voted in favour of the motion. As seen above, this is less than 2/3rds of the members as required under Section 245(2) of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Rules. The votes cast in favour of the motion should have been '8' (by raising 0.33 in 7.33 to one).
Firstly, respondent No.3 ought to have declared that the meeting stood dissolved after waiting for one hour as 8 members had not attended the meeting, but the motion was put to vote and all the seven members who attended the meeting voted in its favour and the third respondent declared that the motion was carried. This is illegal on two grounds. As the meeting stood dissolved, the motion should not have been put to vote. Any result of voting in a meeting which under the law stood dissolved should not have been taken cognizance of by respondent No.3 and he could not have given a declaration that the motion was carried. At any rate in as much as only 7 members voted in favour of the motion which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 245(2) of the Act read with Rule 11 being less than 7.33, which has to be construed as 8 (by raising fraction 0.33 in 7.33 to one), the third respondent committed grave illegality in declaring that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was carried. It does not make any difference that as stated by the 3rd respondent in his counter affidavit he acted under the interim orders of this Court in W.P.M.P. No. 12447 of 1997 in WP No. 10255 of 1997 suspending the operation of the relevant rules, inasmuch as interim orders passed are subject to the findings and orders by way of final orders in the writ petition.
23. In the result, we declare the action of the 3rd respondent declaring the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner having been passed by order dated 2-9-1997 as illegal and in violation of Section 245 of the Panchayat Raj Act read with relevant rules and the said declaration of the minutes of the meeting by respondent No.3 is quashed and consequently we restrain respondent No.1 from acting upon the said declaration of respondent No.3 and from issuing any notification removing the petitioner from office. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
24. Before we part with this case, it may be mentioned that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.10255/97 have not even stated that they have given any notice or requisition for moving a no-confidence motion. They have merely communicated their intention to move a motion in future. In fact, there is no lis as far as this writ petition is concerned. However, in the light of the discussion above, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.