BADDAM LINGAMMA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFIICER KARIMNAGAR
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFIICER, KARIMNAGAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This case illustrates the familiar
pattern of tussles between the sarpanchas
who resist the attempts to unseat them
and the majority of the members of
Panchayats who seek to unseat the
sarpanchas. The language of the relevant provisions in the Panchayat Act not
being too clear or happy has contributed
not a little to the spate of writ petitions
filed in this Court in cases of this description.
(2.) The petitioner is the sarpanch of the
Gram Panchayat, Parvella Village of
Kareemnagar District. The total
strength of the Panchayat is 9. Six
members are ranged against the savpanch.
They have initiated a move for moving a
motion expressing want of confidence in
the sarpanch. On 25th August, 1971
six members ranged against the sarpanch
(who are respondents 2 to 7 in this writ
petition) addressed a letter to the Revenue
Divisional Officer notifying their intention under section 51 of the Gram Panchayat
Act (referred to herein as the Act).
They also appended to the notice the
document set out herasunder:
Before the Revenue Divisional Officer
We, the members of the Gram Panchayat, Parvella Taluk, Karimnagar beg
to submit A the following for your
consideration and immediate action.
Because of the failure and slackness on
the part of the sarpanch Smt. Baddam
Lingamma, in performing her normal
duties, no scheme for village development is taken up so far and no tax
collection is being done for undertaking any kind of development and
sanitory activities. We the menbers of
the Gram Panchayat, Parvella have lost
confidence in her as such we hereby
move this no-confidence motion
against the said sarpanch, Smt.
B. Lingamma of Parvella after resolving- unanimously among ourselves to
remove the said sarpanch, from her
office after the expiry of the statutory
period of one year, with 2/3rd
majority of undersigned as required
under Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act.
Prayer : It is therefore, prayed that
your honour may fix up a date for
conducting fresh elections to the
sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Parvella,
for which act of justice the undersigned members shall ever pray".
(Marked annexures of the Petition).
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact no written notice of
the intention to make the motion was given
in the manner laid down by sub-section
(2) of section 51. But this allegation is
unfounded as a notice cf that nature has
been produced by the Government
pleader for my perusal. On receipt of
the notice and the annexure appended
thereto, the first respondent viz., the
Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices
intimating the members that a meeting
of the Panchayat was to be held on 17th
September, 1971, for considering the
motion expressing want of confidence
in the sarpanch. Before the date fixed
for the meeting, the petitioner has fixed
this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It is contended by the
petitioner that no motion which is to
be considered and voted upon at the
meeting was actually handed over to the
Revenue Divisional Officer and consequently no meeting could validly be
summoned by him. The foundation or
the basis for the action of the Revenue
Divisional Officer in summoning the
meeting ir alleged to be lacking.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.