V SUBBA RAO Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFIICER MEDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to convene the meeting of the Kothapalli Gram Panchayat, Andol tulak, Medak District for consideration of the no-eonfidence motion given notice of by the petitioners on 22.8-1965.

(2.) The relevant facts to understand the contentions raised before me are that both the petitioners are members of the Kothapalli Gram Panchayat. They along with four others submitted a no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch, who is the 2nd respondent, herein, before the Revenee Divisional Officer. The 2nd respondent convened a meeting for the consideration of the no-confidence motion fixing the date of the meeting as 11-9-65. Before the meeting could be held, the 2nd respondent, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, filed an application to the Minister for Panchayat Raj complaiaing that out of the six members of the Gram Panchayat who signed the no-confidence motion, two members were disquali fied inasmuch as they had failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the Gram Panchayat and thus incurred disqualification under section 2 (k) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964, hereinafter called 'the Act'. The Minister the same day passed an order that the consideration of the no-confidence motion be stayed and that the order sho uld be communicated by wire. The meeting was accordingly stayed.

(3.) The petitioners have now challenged the order of stay granted by the Minister as a consequence of which the consideration of the no-confidence motion has been stayed. The principal contention of Mr. Y. Sivarama Sastri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the Government was not competent to grant stay, as a complete embargo has been put on the issue of such an order by section 51 (5) of the Act. It was on the other hand, contended by the learned Government Pleader that the Government can revise the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer accepting the no confidence motion as valid and directing the meeting to be held for its consideration under section 232 of the Act. In the exercise of the said revisional power under that provisio of aw, the Government can also stay the consideration of such a defective motion, contends the learned Advocate.