PERIKA ANJALI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. Perika Anjali was duly elected as the President of Thimmapoor Mandal Praja Parishad in the elections held during the month of February, 1995. Including her, as many as 13 members were elected to the Mandal parishad. Out of them, 10 were elected on the symbol and ticket of Indian National Congress whereas two members were elected from Telugu Desam party and one from C.P.I. That is how the petitioner commanded almost brook majority of her party in the Parishad. The petitioner has pleaded that she learnt that out of 10 members of her party, 5 had signed a No Confidence Motion against her along with two members belonging to Telugu Desam Party and one from C.P.I. To her knowledge, four of such members of her parry were missing from their houses for more than two weeks thereafter. It appears that the District party President gave a complaint to the local police and it was ultimately found that they were in the custody of Telugu Desam Party people at Hyderabad, according to their version. She has complained that at the instance of the local M.L.A. belonging to the Telugu Desam Party, the Police did not register the crime. However, they stood to investigate into the matter. The petitioner alleged that such persons had been forcibly taken away in that context. She has alleged that all such four persons viz., Avula Sayamma,Nostulapur; Kasagoni Rajamma, Mallapur; Janga Rajaah, Mannempalli and Md. Syed Riazuddin, L.M.D., belong to Congress (I) who were elected on such party ticket to the Mandal Parishad membership. She alleged that actually, they were kidnapped by the other party member. Under the circumsances, a notice of 'No Confidence Motion' was presented by 9 members of the Mandal Parishad under Section 245(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') to Respondent No.2, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar on 4-4-1997 in a Form and based upon it, Respondent No.2 fixed 22-4-1997 at 10.00 am for the purpose of dealing with the No Confidence Motion in the Mandal Parishad, Thimmapoor. It appears that such a notice was also said to be served on the members of the Parishad on 4th and 5th of April, 1997 as per the directions of Respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, on 21-4-1997, this petition was filed challenging such impugned notice of No Confidence as illegal, arbitrary and seeking a relief for declaring the action of Respondent No.2 as such. In W.P. M.P.No.9888 of 1997, notice was ordered on 21-4-1997 and this Court passed interim order on 21-4-1997 to the effect that the proposed meeting be convened to consider the No Confidence Motion, but the results shall not be published until further orders. Accordingly, the proceedings were conducted on 22-4-1997 whereby the No Confidence Motion was moved, but the results were not declared in view of the interim order. However, this Court passed one more interim order on 13-7-1997 to the effect that the results of the No Confidence Motion may be declared, however the result of the same shall be subject to the result of this Writ Petition. Now it is reported that in such a No Confidence Motion proceedings, all the 9 persons who were present in the meeting voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion against the petitioner, the President of Thimmapoor Mandal Parishad. These are the admitted facts.

(2.) In the mean while,W.P.M.P.No.l0951 of 1997 was filed by two of the members of the Parishad viz., Mr. Syed Riazuddin and Mr. Janga Rajaiah to implead them as parties and they have been impleaded as Respondent 1997(6) FR-F-49 Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.2 has filed the Counter on behalf of all the respondents.

(3.) Mr. K. Ashok Reddy, learned advocate for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds taken in the Writ Petition, has contended that the impugned notice is not in the prescribed Form No.II as required under Section 245(1) of the Act and Rule 2 of the Rules relating to Motion of No Confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice- President/President of Mandal parishad or Vice-Chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishad (for short, 'the Rules'). The whole 'No Confidence Motion' proceedings are fraudulent having pressurised the Parishad members belonging to Congress (I) Party by kidnapping them and getting up the so-called notice of No Confidence, the whole proceedings following thereafter are vitiated. It is also his contention that the members of the Parishad are not actually served with the notice of the meeting for moving No-Confidence Motion on 224-1997 and all the proceedings of Respondent No.2 are got up and manipulated and, therefore, commencing from the impugned notice upto the last stage of so-called proceedings on 22-4-1997, the whole matter is tainted with illegality, arbitrariness and fraudulent consequences. He has further contended that in a matter like this, there is a doubt upon the so-called defection of the members of the Parishad belonging to Contress-I Party, the Court should examine every meticulous detail to know the legality and propriety of the impugned notice leading to the proceedings on 22-4-1997. He has pointed out, in all such matters ultimately the members of the Parishad were to vote in the No Confidence proceedings which has got the tinge of election law and regarding which all the statutory-obligations are to be strictly and technically followed and any violation of the same should be viewed seriously.