KAMISETTY NARAYANA MURTHY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ELURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Upa-Sarpanch of Padala Gram Panchayat of Tadepalligudem Mandal in West Godavari District. He filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the action initiated by the first respondent in scheduling the meeting on 11 -8-2005 to consider motion of no confidence moved by the members of the Gram Panchayat. This Court while admitting the writ petition, stayed the announcement of the result by reason of the orders passed on 09-08-2005. The respondents 2 to 9 moved W.V.M.P. No. 2386 of 2005 to vacate the interim order. At that stage itself, with the consent of the learned counsel for rival parties, the matter was heard finally and is being disposed of by this order.

(2.) The petitioner was elected as member of Gram Panchayat along with nine others in 2001. Later, he was elected as Upa-Sarpanch of the village. On 22-6-2005, respondents 2 to 9, who are the ward members of the Gram panchayat, issued a notice of their intention to move motion expressing no confidence against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent, thereafter, issued a notice in Form No.lV on 4-7-2005 proposing to conduct a meeting on 23-7-2005. The petitioner raised objection to the effect that he did not receive the notice of the meeting. Therefore, the meeting was adjourned. Again, the first respondent issued notice on 25-7-2005 in Form No. IV proposing to conduct meeting on 11 -8-2005 to consider the motion to express want of confidence. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. The petitioner contends that the respondents 2 to 9 issued a notice of intention on 22-6-2005 and, therefore, the meeting ought to have been conducted within thirty (30) days from 22-6-2005. Though the meeting was notified on 23-7-2005, the same was adjourned and meeting was fixed on 11 -8-2005, which is beyond 45 days and, therefore, the entire process is vitiated by illegality.

(3.) The first respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. Various averments made by the petitioner are not denied.The fact that on23-7-2005, the meeting was adjourned is also admitted. It is further stated that on 11-8-2005, meeting was conducted at 11.00 a.m. and that ten (10) members of the Gram Panchayat attended the meeting. Voting was conducted by show of hands and eight members supported the motion of no confidence and three others including the Sarpanch negatived the motion. The first respondent admits that on 23-7-2005, the meeting was adjourned as the petitioner gave a representation that he did not receive any notice of meeting and that he came to the meeting after knowing the same from the Sarpanch of the. Gram Panchayat.