Vanaparthi Sireesha vs State Of Telangana

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“ .. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the Proposed Motion dated 28.12.2023 submitted by the Ward Members of the Kodad Municipality without there being any power, authority, procedure and Rules prescribed under the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, to remove the Chairperson/Vice Chairperson, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Section 37 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents not to take any action in pursuance of the Proposed Motion of No Confidence dated 28.12.2023 and pass such other and further order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Heard Sri P.Sathwik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of 5th respondent and Sri Palle Nageswara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7, and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

Petitioner contends that some of the Ward Councilors of Kodad Municipality had proposed to move motion of No-confidence against her from holding the office of Chairperson by submitting a requisition in writing along with Form-I to the District Collector on 28-12-2023; that as per Section 37 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’) read with G.O.Ms.No.835 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Elec.II) dated 03-12-2008, it is the Collector, who is required to cause verification of the signatures of the members who have signed Form-I with reference to the signatures of the members available in municipal records; and thereafter notice referred to in Form-II shall be served on the members as provided in Section 353 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that instead of the District Collector undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the said exercise has been undertaken by the 4th respondent, who in turn, by his letter dated 29-12-2023, called upon the 5th respondent to issue Form-II notice, which is in violation of the Rules notified under G.O.Ms.No.835 dated 03-12-2008. Learned Counsel contends that there has been gross violation of the Rules.

Learned counsel for petitioner further contends that thus, the proposed meeting fixed on 17-01-2024 at 12 noon to consider the motion of No-confidence against the petitioner as proposed under communication dated 29-12-2023 of the 4th respondent is without any authority.

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, on the other hand, contends that Section 37 of the Act only prescribes that the District Collector is the competent Authority to receive the motion of No-confidence, and in the absence of any further prescription as to authority who is required to take further action on receiving such motion of No-confidence, the action of 4th respondent in taking further steps to implement the proposed motion cannot be found fault with.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.6 and 7 would submit that in the absence of any prescription under the Act with regard to the powers subsequent to receiving the proposed motion of No-confidence, the 4th respondent, being a subordinate Officer to the 3rd respondent and holding of meeting by fixing a date of meeting and other aspects connected there with all being a procedural in nature, the 4th respondent is entitled to undertake the exercise of verification of requisition submitted being the officer exercising administrative powers under the 3rd respondent and issue notice proposing to hold a meeting whereat the motion of No-confidence is to be moved.

I have taken note of respective contentions urged.

Section 37 of the Telangana Municipalities Act reads as under:

“37. A motion expressing want of confidence in the Chairperson and/or the Vice-Chairperson may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion, in such form as specified under the Rules, signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Municipality having right to vote, together with a copy of the proposed motion, to the District Collector concerned, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules:

Provided that no notice of motion under this section shall be made within three (3) years of the date of assumption of office by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved.

Provided further that if the motion is not carried by two-thirds majority or if the meeting could not be held for want of a quorum, no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same person shall be made until after the expiration of one year from the date of such first meeting.”

A reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that the motion of No-confidence against a Chairperson/Vice-Chairperson is to be given in writing by the members not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Municipality having right to vote to the District Collector. However, the Section indicates that such proposed motion given to the District Collector concerned should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules.

It is to be noted that under the Act, no Rules have been framed or prescribed. In the absence of any Rules being framed under the Act, reference can be made to Section 299 of the Act dealing with ‘Repeal and saving’. By sub-Section (3) to Section 299 of the Act, it is provided that while repealing the Act viz., Telangana Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act, 1965’), the Rules insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act shall continue to be in force and be deemed to have been made and issued under the provisions of the Act.

If that be so, the Rules framed under Act, 1965 and notified under G.O.Ms.No.835 dated 03-12-2008 have to be considered as having been made applicable under the Act including to Section 37 of the Act. Thus, the Rules framed under the Act, 1965 as notified under G.O.Ms.No.835 dated 03-12-2008 are to be construed as the rules framed under the Act.

The Rules provides for the action that the Collector is required to undertake by himself on receiving the written notice of intention to move the motion in Form-I. Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes that the District Collector, on receiving Form-I, is required to cause verification of the signatures of the members with the signatures of the members available in Municipal records and Rule 5 provides for the Director Collector to convene a meeting thereafter for the consideration of the motion at the office of the Municipal Council on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which notice was delivered to him, and he shall give to the members who are having right to vote, notice of not less than fifteen clear days as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 46 of the Act in the format of Form-II which is appended to Rules and the said form is required to be under the signature of the Collector.

The use of the word “shall” in both Rule 4 and 5 of the Rules indicates that the requirement of such exercise to be undertaken by the Collector himself and cannot be sub-delegated.

In the facts of the present case, it is not shown that on receiving the Form-I, the District Collector causing verification of the signatures as required under Rule 4 and thereafter taking steps to convene the meeting by issuing Form-II under his signature. On the other hand, the 4th respondent, by his communication dated 29-12-2023 as in-charge, directed the 5th respondent to issue Form-II, which in the considered view of this Court, is an invalid procedure adopted by the respondent authorities.

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in seeking to convene meeting on 17-01-2024 to consider the impugned motion of No-confidence against petitioner being in violation of the statutory mandate and the Rules made thereunder, cannot held as valid for it to be sustained.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceeding dated 29-12-2023 issued by the 4th respondent is hereby set aside. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.