KOILI MULASWAMY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NARASAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the judgment of his Lordship the Chief Justice in W.P. No. 1193 of 1965, and having regard to the contention of the learned Government Pleader as well as Mr. Babul Reddy that the provisions of the Act are imperative in deeming the members, whose membership is challenged in the O.P. to continue to be members of the panchayat even for the purposes of no-confidence motion irrespective of the fact that there is no provision for reinstatement of sarpanch, this matter is referred to a Bench. Let it be posted on I2th January, 1966. In pursuance of the above Order, the Petition came on for hearing before the Division Bench.

(2.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gopala krishnan Nair, J.-The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Doddanapud Gram Panchayat. On a notice given by the requisite number of membeis of the Gram Panchayat in accordance with section 51 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act (hereinafter called the Act), the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur (1st respondent) caused an intimation to be served on the petitioner on 25th October, 1965 that a meeting of the Gram Panchayat will be held on 12th November 1965 for considering a motion expressing want of confidence in him. The petitioner thereupon moved this writ petition asking that the notice issued to him by the 1st respondent under section 51 (3) of the Act and the proceeding convening a meeting on 12th November, 1965 be quashed by certiorari. The basis on which he founds his prayer is that O.P. No. 39 of 1965 has been filed on 10th November, 1965 in the Court of the District Munsi, Bhimavaram under section 22 (1) of the Act against three members of the Gram Panchayat viz., respondents to 4 for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to whether they had ceased to be members of the Gram Panchayat on account of their failure to attend three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner's case is that in view of the pendency of this O.P., the Revenue pivjsional Officer ought not to hold the meeting on 12th November, 1965. All the respondents including the Revenue Divisional Officer resist this Writ Petition as opposed to the plain provisions of the Act, especially section 22 (2) thereof. This matter first came before a learned single Judge and he referred it to a Division Bench in view of the decision in W.P. No. 1193. of 1965. The learned Judge in W.P. No. 1193 of 1965 issued a direction at the admission stage to the Revenue Divisional officer, Nellore, not to hold " the meeting for moving the no-confidence motion till the disposal of the O.Ps. " filed under section 22 (i) of the Act. With this direction he dismissed W.P. No. 1193 of 1965.

(3.) We have carefully considered this judgment and are clearly of the opinion that it did not purport to lay down the law for general application and must therefore be confined to the particular case. We say this because the learned Judge himself pointed out in his judgment that in view of section 22 (2) of the Act a member in respect of whom an application is made before a District Munsif under section 22 (i), will, during the pendency of the application, be entitled to act as if be is a qualified member of the gram Panchayat. The direction issued in W.P. No. 1193 of 1965 was not based so much on a strict interpretation of the provisions of the Act as on considerations of convenience and hardship which were put forward by the Counsel for the writ petitioner. Section 22 (2) of the Act is clear beyond reasonable doubt . It reads : "Pending such decision, the member shall be entitled to act as if he is qualified or were not disqualified."