GAYAM ESWARAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the validity of the explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules framed in G.O. Ms. No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mandal-I), dated 28-4-1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), rotating to the motion of no confidence against the Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat or President or Vice-President of Mandal Parishad, or Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Zilla Parishad, as being ultra vires of Section 245(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (in short referred to as 'the Act') and consequently declare the proceedings of vote of no confidence moved against the petitioner as illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) According to the case of the petitioner, petitioner is Mandal President of Hanumanthapadu Mandal, Prakasam District and there are 8 MPTC members in the said Mandal Parishad. The office of the President of the Mandal Parishad is reserved for woman candidate and the petitioner is the woman President. It is the further case of the petitioner that a motion expressing want of confidence in her, was presented before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, on 5-8-1998 and in pursuance of the said motion, 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 7-8-1998 convening the meeting, for consideration of vote of no confidence at 1.00a.m. on 27-8-1998. Out of eight members, five members have voted in favour of the motion. The petitioner alleged that petitioner has been doing good work, to the satisfaction of the people, but five members belonging to Telugu Desam party want to remove her from the post of President, as the petitioner and two others belong to the Congress party. These proceedings are initiated against her with a mala fide intention only to see that the petitioner is ousted from her office. The petitioner contended that whatever it may be, the explanation to Rule 6 of the Rules is ultra vires of Section 245(2) of the Act and consequently, the proceedings of vote of no confidence moved against the petitioner would be illegal and without jurisdiction,

(3.) By filing a counter, these allegations of the petitioner are denied by the official respondents. It is contended that the rule is infra vires of Section 245 of the Act and as such there is no illegality in the impugned proceedings.