Relangi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs The Government of A.P. and Others

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The petitioner was elected as President of the Rajahmundry Rural Mandal Parishad in the year 2006. The Mandal Parishad comprises of 39 members 26 of them have delivered notice in Form-II on 27-09-2008 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry - second respondent, with a prayer to convene the meeting of the Mandal Parishad to take up the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. A copy of the proposed motion of no confidence was also enclosed. Acting on the same, the second respondent issued notice dated 29-09-2005 in Form-V proposing to convene the meeting of the Mandal Parishad on 18-10-2008. The petitioner challenges the said notice. He contends that, on earlier occasion, about 29 members have delivered notice for the same purpose and a notice in Form-V was also issued proposing to conduct meeting on 06-09-2008. He states that he filed W.P.No.19065 of 2008 assailing the said proceedings and this Court had allowed the writ petition on 19-09-2008 holding that the notice issued by the members as well as the one issued in Form-V are defective. Sri Rama Rao Philkhana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once there was an attempt to move a motion of no confidence by delivering a notice, it is not open to the second respondent to initiate steps for the second time. He contends that the present proceedings are in violation of Rule 3 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-2008 (for short ''the Rules''). He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Gogineni Koteswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad and others, and that of the Supreme Court in P.T. Rajan Vs. T.P.M. Sahir and Others, .

Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Mandal Parishad, strongly opposes the writ petition. They plead that what is prohibited under Rule 2 of the Rules is a second notice and it axiomatically means that the first notice was acted upon to a certain extent. They contend that when the notice dated 18- 08-2008 was set aside by this Court as defective, it cannot be treated as notice in the eye of law, and in that view of the matter, the present notice cannot be treated as second one. They place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Tiparthi Chandra Mouli Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, . On earlier occasion, as many as 29 members made an effort to move a motion of no confidence against the petitioner by delivering a notice on 18-08-2008. The same gave rise to issuance of notice in Form-V. In W.P.No.19065 of 2008 filed by the petitioner, this Court interfered with the said proceedings and specific findings were recorded to the effect that the notice delivered by the signatories does not accord with Form-II and notice in Form-V does not contain dates. In that view of the matter, both of them were set aside. The endeavour of the petitioner is to invoke the prohibition contained in second proviso to Rule 2 of the Rules. Rule 2 reads as under:

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 Chair person 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 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 office.

The second proviso, no doubt, prohibits repetition of the exercise, once it was undertaken. Obviously, the effort is to ensure that an elected representative is not subjected to repeated motions of no confidence. The petitioner can secure the advantage of the second proviso, if only a notice in Form-II, in its letter and spirit, was delivered on earlier occasion and, thereafter, the exercise is repeated again. For anyone, to claim the benefit under the second proviso, there must exist, a notice issued on earlier occasion, which accorded with the relevant rule and prescribed form. A defective notice cannot be taken into account for this purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that it is not necessary that the first notice must have led to convening of the meeting of the Mandal Parishad in the context of invoking the second proviso. However, it is too difficult to accept that even a defective notice needs to be taken into account for this purpose.

The peril in accepting such contention was demonstrated by this Court in P.T. Rajan Vs. T.P.M. Sahir and Others, . It was observed that, if, even a defective notice is to be treated as holding good for invoking the second proviso, a situation may arise where a smart enough President or Vice-President may engineer a defective notice which naturally leads to aborted attempt and then take advantage of the same to prevent an otherwise valid notice and consequential meeting. The relevant paragraph reads as under: "The notice of intention contemplated u/s 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.

In Gogineni Koteswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad and others, , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts are totally different. That was a case where a meeting of no confidence was convened but could not be held on account of lack of quorum. The Revenue Divisional Officer proceeded with the meeting after adjournment. This Court found fault with the exercise. Such is not the case here.

It has already been pointed out, the earlier notice dated 18-08-2008, was found by this Court to be totally defective. Therefore, the present notice cannot be treated as the second one. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.