CH VENKATA RAO Vs. R D O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 14-7-1997 convening a meeting of Dattirejeru Mandal Parishad on 30-7-1997 to consider the motion of no confidence in the President of the Parishad.

(2.) . The petitioner is one of the members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency of Dattirejeru Mandal Parishad. This Parishad consists of 15 members, 8 of whom belonged to Congress (I) Party, 5 belonged to Telugu Desam Party and the remaining 2 are independents. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram received on 12-7-1997 a notice in Form-II dated 12-7-1997signed by 10 members of the Parishad expressing want of confidence in the President. It may be mentioned that the President was a member of the Congress (I) Party. Since that party had 8 out of 15 seats, he had been elected by the majority. However, of the ten persons who expressed the want of confidence, 3 belonged to Congress (I) Party. The balance being 7 members belonging to T.D.P. and two independents. The Revenue Divisional Officer, thereupon issued a notice in Form-V dated 14-7-1997 to all the 15 members of the Mandal Parishad. The notices were dated 14-7-1997 and signed on that day calling for a special meeting on 30-7-1997 to consider the motion of no confidence. These notices were served on the members on 21st and 22nd July, 1997 through the Mandal Parishad Development Officer either by giving it to such member or to an adult member of his family.

(3.) . The petitioner, who was one of the members of the Parishad and a member of the Congress (I) Party filed this writ petition on 24-7-1997 three days before the date on which the meeting was to be held and contended that Rule 3 of the Rules relating to the motion of no confidence in G.O.Ms. No. 137 dated 27-3-1997 requires notice of not less than 15 clear days, and the said requirement was not fulfilled by the notice as it was served only on 22-7-1997 just seven days prior to the date of the meeting being July 30,1997. The writ petition was admitted on 28-7-1997 and an interim direction was given to the respondents to proceed with the meeting, however, result of no confidence motion was not be published until further orders. It is stated that the meeting was actually held on 30-7-1997 but the petitioner as well as the other 4 members of the Congress (I) Party, who were not signatories to the no confidence motion did not attend the meeting. The 10 members of the Parishad who are signatories to the motion filed a petition to implead themselves and also filed counter-affidavit pleading for vacating the interim direction. It is contended by these persons that the Rule which contemplated giving of notice of 15 days has no reference to the service of the notice but only the date of the notice, and therefore, the requirement was fulfilled in this case as the notice is dated 14-7-1997 which is more than 15 days before the date of the meeting 30-7-1997. It is also contended that the petitioner who had received the notice cannot complain that he had no notice of the meeting particularly when he did not care to attend the meeting.