BADDAM LINGAMMA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFIICER KARIMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case illustrates the familiar pattern of tussles between the sarpanchas who resist the attempts to unseat them and the majority of the members of Panchayats who seek to unseat the sarpanchas. The language of the relevant provisions in the Panchayat Act not being too clear or happy has contributed not a little to the spate of writ petitions filed in this Court in cases of this description.

(2.) The petitioner is the sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Parvella Village of Kareemnagar District. The total strength of the Panchayat is 9. Six members are ranged against the savpanch. They have initiated a move for moving a motion expressing want of confidence in the sarpanch. On 25th August, 1971 six members ranged against the sarpanch (who are respondents 2 to 7 in this writ petition) addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer notifying their intention under section 51 of the Gram Panchayat Act (referred to herein as the Act). They also appended to the notice the document set out herasunder: Before the Revenue Divisional Officer Kareemnagar. Sir, We, the members of the Gram Panchayat, Parvella Taluk, Karimnagar beg to submit A the following for your consideration and immediate action. Because of the failure and slackness on the part of the sarpanch Smt. Baddam Lingamma, in performing her normal duties, no scheme for village development is taken up so far and no tax collection is being done for undertaking any kind of development and sanitory activities. We the menbers of the Gram Panchayat, Parvella have lost confidence in her as such we hereby move this no-confidence motion against the said sarpanch, Smt. B. Lingamma of Parvella after resolving- unanimously among ourselves to remove the said sarpanch, from her office after the expiry of the statutory period of one year, with 2/3rd majority of undersigned as required under Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act. Prayer : It is therefore, prayed that your honour may fix up a date for conducting fresh elections to the sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Parvella, for which act of justice the undersigned members shall ever pray". (Marked annexures of the Petition).

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact no written notice of the intention to make the motion was given in the manner laid down by sub-section (2) of section 51. But this allegation is unfounded as a notice cf that nature has been produced by the Government pleader for my perusal. On receipt of the notice and the annexure appended thereto, the first respondent viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices intimating the members that a meeting of the Panchayat was to be held on 17th September, 1971, for considering the motion expressing want of confidence in the sarpanch. Before the date fixed for the meeting, the petitioner has fixed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended by the petitioner that no motion which is to be considered and voted upon at the meeting was actually handed over to the Revenue Divisional Officer and consequently no meeting could validly be summoned by him. The foundation or the basis for the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in summoning the meeting ir alleged to be lacking.