Dammagouni Ravinder Goud vs State Of Telangana

Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Lingampelly Ravinder, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1-State.

Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8.

This intra court appeal has been filed against an order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4105 of 2024, by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Jinnaram Mandal on 07.06.2019. The Members of the Mandal Praja Parishad, Jinnaram Mandal submitted a proposal to the Revenue Divisional Officer of Jinnaram Mandal, by which Revenue Divisional Officer was informed that the members of Mandal Praja Parishad, Jinnaram Mandal proposed to make a Motion expressing want of confidence in the appellant and they requested the Revenue Divisional Officer to convene a meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence. Thereupon Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice under Section 245(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Old Act’), dated 08.02.2024, by which the appellant was informed that the meeting for consideration of motion of no confidence shall be convened on 26.02.2024.

The appellant thereupon challenged the validity of the aforesaid notice in a writ petition namely W.P.No.4105 of 2024. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 12.03.2024 has dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this intra court appeal has been filed.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that under Section 295 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the New Act’), the rules framed under the Old Act do not survive and therefore the notice issued against the appellant under the old rules which have already been repealed cannot be sustained. Alternatively it is urged that under Rule 2 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 Zilla Parishad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), the competent authority to issue the notices is Assistant Collector, whereas the notice has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer who has no authority to issue the impugned notice to the appellant. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-Collector and Assistant Collector are used in the State of Telangana interchangeably and all the said officers are head of the revenue block. It is therefore submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to issue the notice convening the meeting of a motion of no confidence against the appellant.

We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

In exercise of powers under Section 245 of the Old Act read with Section 263 of the New Act, the rules for moving the motion of no confidence against the Vice President have been framed.

Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules, which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in the appeal is extracted below for the facility of reference:

“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 Chairman and Vice-Chairman 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 Chairman, as the case may be, but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members 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.”

The Old Act namely Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was repealed and a new Act namely Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 was enacted. Section 30 of the New Act deals with motion of no confidence in Upa Surpanch. Section 263 of the New Act deals with motion of no confidence in President or Chairperson of a Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad. Section 295 of the New Act deals with repeal and saving.

Section 295(3) of the New Act is extracted below for the facility of reference:

“(3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or bye-law made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the Act shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act continue in force and be deemed to have been made, issued or granted, under the provisions of this Act, unless it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or bye-law made or issued, and any license or permission granted under the said provisions.”

Thus from perusal of Section 295(3) of the New Act, it is evident that any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form, notice or bye-law made or issued under the provisions of the Old Act is saved. Thus, by operation of Section 295(3) of the New Act, the rules relating to motion of no confidence are also saved. Therefore, the contention that the notice has been issued under the repealed provision of the Rules does not deserve acceptance.

Insofar as submission that the notice of consideration of motion of no confidence has not been considered by competent authority is concerned, suffice it to say that admittedly the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-Collector or Assistant Collector are heads of the revenue block and the aforesaid expressions are used interchangeably. The post of Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub-Collector or Assistant Collector belong to the same rank.

For the aforementioned reasons, the contention that the notices for consideration of motion of no confidence of the appellant has not been issued by the competent authority does not deserve acceptance.

In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by learned Single Judge.

In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.