AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the elected President of Mandal Parishad, Kulcharam, approached this Court in a very peculiar circumstance. The respondents 3 to 7 served notice under Rule 2 of the Rules read with Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (''the Act'' for brevity). These Rules, which govern the passing of No Confidence Motions, are made by the Government u/s 268 read with sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 245 of the Act. Be that as it may, the notice in Form No.II, along with a copy of the resolution, expressing want of confidence was served on the second respondent on 22-10-1999. After receiving the same, as required under Rule 3, the second respondent sent notices in Form No.V, enclosing a copy of the proposed resolution, informing the respondents 3 to 7 and other members of the Mandal Parishad that a meeting shall be held on 17-11-1999 for considering the Motion of No Confidence given by the respondents 3 to 7. It is now alleged that on 27-10-1999 itself the respondents 3 to 7 sent a letter/joint representation to the second respondent informing that they have changed their mind and it is their desire that the petitioner should alone continue as President of Mandal Parishad.
After the respondents 3 to 7 sent joint/common representation to the second respondent the petitioner has approached this Court just two days before the scheduled meeting on 17-11-1999, complaining that the second respondent without causing any enquiry and without satisfying with regard to the intention of the members, is proceeding to convene the meeting on 17-11-1999. This is complained as illegal and arbitrary.
Section 245 of the Act says that a motion expressing want of confidence in the President of the Mandal Parishad shall be by giving written notice of intention to move the motion in the form as prescribed, and the competent authority is required to act on such notice in accordance with the Rules prescribed under the Act. If the motion is carried with the support of not less than 2/3rd of the total members, the Government shall, thereupon, by notification, remove the President from the Office. The method and manner of conducting a meeting by the Officer concerned, in this case Revenue Divisional Officer, is prescribed by the Rules. Rule 3 is relevant and it states that after receiving notice of intention in Form No.II, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall give the every member the notice in Form No.V, of not less than 15 clear days within a period of 30 days after receipt of the notice in Form No.II and convene a meeting for considering the motion of No Confidence. Rule 7 is all the more important. It reads as follows:
"If within one hour after the time appointed for the meeting, there is no quorum, the meeting shall stand dissolved and the notice given under Rule 2 shall lapse."
Therefore, the only event when a notice issued under Rule 2 shall lapse is. when within one hour after convening the meeting on the specified date there is no quorum, the meeting gets dissolved and notice of No Confidence shall lapse. These rules require the Revenue Divisional Officer to convene a meeting within 30 days after receiving the notice of intention under Rule 2 and giving a notice of clear 15 days before the meeting is convened. The other mandatory requirement is that the Revenue Divisional Officer is under obligation to wait at least for one hour on the specified date to come to the conclusion that there is no quorum namely 2/3rd of total number of members as per Rule 6. In such event alone the notice of intention to move no confidence will lapse. To this extent, Rules 3, 6 and 7 read with Section 245(1) and (2) are mandatory requirements. Therefore, the prayer, as asked for, would be contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the Rules. Indeed, such a Writ of Mandamus shall not issue from this Court.
If the respondents 3 to 7 have changed their mind, nothing prevents them or nobody comes in their way to maintain ''their change of mind'' even on the date of meeting on 17-11-1999. However, Sri F. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to my notice the following excerpt from "Practice and Procedure of Parliament" by MJV. Kaul and S.L Shakdher (ill Edition 1986):
"Notice of no-confidence motion can also be withdrawn by the members concerned by sending letters of withdrawal signed by all the signatories to the notice before the item is taken up in the House. In that case the item is not mentioned in or brought before, the House."
On the basis of this, the learned Counsel would desire this Court to come to the same conclusion that the process of expressing no confidence in the elected President can always be withdrawn.
The learned Authors M.N. Kant and S.L Sitakdher relying on the Lok Sabha Debates of 1963, commented on a situation when notice of no confidence can be withdrawn by the members concerned by sending letters of withdrawal. Even this statement of Parliamentary Practice is also against the petitioner because, according to the learned authors, the Meeting will nevertheless be convened, but the agenda item concerning expressing No Confidence is not mentioned or called for consideration of the House. Therefore, this Parliamentary Practice, which is neither supported by a ruling of a Speaker nor any decided case, even if it is taken as a convention, does not support the petitioner.
Article 118 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to make rules for regulating its procedure and regulating the conduct of the business. After inauguration of the Constitution of India, the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) Rules of Procedure and conduct of business were modified and adopted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha in exercise of powers under Article 118(2) of the Constitution. These Rules of Procedure were amended from time to time. In 1989 the VIII Lok Sabha considered all the amendments and new Rules of Procedure were brought out in December, 1989. Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure which deals with Motion of No Confidence of Council of Ministers does not provide that when once leave is granted by the House to a member to make the Motion of No Confidence, the same motion can be withdrawn without putting it to the house either to amend the motion or to pass the motion as moved. Rule 198 is as follows:
"Motion of No Confidence in Council of Ministers and Statement by Minister who has Resigned.
198(1) A motion expressing want of confidence in the Council of Ministers may be made subject to the following restrictions, namely-
(a) Leave to make the motion shall be asked for by the member when called by the Speaker;
(b) The member asking for leave shall be 10.00 hours on that day give to the Secretary-General a written notice of the motion which he proposes to move:
Provided that notices, received after 10.00 hours shall be deemed to have been received at 10.00 hours on the next day on which the House sits.
(2) If the Speaker of the opinion that the motion is in order, he shall read the motion to the House and shall request those members who are in favour of leave being granted to rise in their places, and if not less than fifty members rise accordingly, the Speaker shall declare that leave is granted and that the motion will be taken up on such day, not being more than ten days from the date on which the leave is asked or as he may appoint. If less than fifty members rise, the Speaker shall inform the member that he has not the leave the House.
(3) If leave is granted under sub-rule (2), the Speaker may after considering the state of business in the House, allot a day or days or part of a day for the discussion of the motion.
(4) The Speaker shall, at the appointed hour on the allotted day or the last of the allotted days, as the case may be forthwith put every question necessary to determine the decision of the House on the motion.
(5) The Speaker may, if he thinks fit, prescribe a time limit for speeches."
Therefore, the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha do not permit a Motion of No Confidence to be withdrawn even before the same is put to vote in the House. In view of this, I arn not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel based on the passage from ''Practice and Procedure of Parliament'' by MTV. KaulandS.L Shakdher (III Edition 1986).
It is also useful to refer to ''Treatise on Parliamentary Practice'' by Erskine May, Twenty-second edition, 1997 (p.339)-
Withdrawal of Motions
"A member who has made a motion can withdraw it only by leave of the House, granted without any negative voice. This leave is signified, not upon question but by the Speaker taking the pleasure of the House. He asks, ''Is it your pleasure that the motion be withdrawn?'' If no one desists, the Speaker says ''Motion by leave withdrawn''. However, if there is any objection or if a Member rises to continue the debate, the Speaker must put the question at the end of the debate as, even if a dissentient Member no longer objects, the motion can no longer be withdrawn. An amendment can be withdrawn in the same way, but neither a motion nor an amendment can be withdrawn except by the Member who moved it. It is, however, the practice for a member of the Government to withdraw a motion in the absence of the Member (also a member of the Government), who moved it. Occasionally a motion or amendment is, by leave, withdra\\vn, and another motion, or amendment substituted, in order to meet the views of the House, as expressed in debate. This course can be taken only with the general assent of the House. Where an amendment has been proposed to a question, the original motion cannot be withdrawn until the amendment has been first disposed of by being agreed to. withdrawn or negatived since the question on the amendment stands before the main question."
In view of the authority on Parliament Practice as well as the binding statutory Rules, it has to be concluded that when once notice of intention of no confidence is served under sub-section (1) of Section 245, the same has to undergo the process as per the provisions of the Rules and the same can only be deemed to have lapsed when the conditions as mentioned in Rule 7 are satisfied. There is no other method of withdrawing the notice of no confidence.
In this case, as already noticed, the provisions of Section 245(1) and (2) clearly state that No Confidence in the President can be expressed only in accordance with the provisions u/s 245 read with Rules 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the Rules. There cannot be any other method or manner of either expressing No Confidence or withdrawing intention of Motion of No Confidence. In a democratic polity, the power of the people to recall the elected representatives again through elected representatives by expressing Motion or No Confidence is an extraordinary power coupled with a duty. Therefore, the Law requires that an elected person can not be removed from the office unless the mandatory requirements of Law are strictly applied. The same principle equally applies to a case where the same members, who gave intention of Motion of No Confidence, again changed their mind and sent a common non-statutory representation to the concerned Officer expressing their confidence in the elected President. Either expressing No Confidence or expressing confidence in the elected person should be strictly in accordance with the Act and Rules. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.