Decided on March 06,1963



Satyanarayana Raju, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment of our learned brother, Basi Reddy, J., dismissing the petition filed by the present appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the District Collector, Khammam (the first respondent), dated the 16th November, 1962.
(2.) The facts which have given rise to the Writ Petition may be briefly stated. The appellant, M. Ramaiah, was elected as the Surpanch of the Panchayat Committee, Arimpula, in the year 1959. The total sanctioned strength of the Panchayat including the Surpanch and the Upa-Surpanch is 8. One of the members of the Panchayat, however, resigned in April, 1962. On the 29th October, 1962, at a meeting duly convened by the Tahsildar, Khammam, a motion of no-confidence was passed against the appellant. Five out of the seven members present voted in favour of no-confidence motion and two including the appellant voted against the motion. Thereafter, the appellant was informed that he should resign his office as per the provisions of section 28(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Gram Panchayats Act, 1956. On receipt of this notice, the appellant, it is said, was at first inclined to hand over charge to the Upa-Surpanch ; but later, however, on the 13th November, 1962, he filed a revision petition to the District Collector, Khammam. to revise the order issued by him. Thereupon, the District Collector, acting under section 28 (3) of the Act, removed the petitioner from office by his order, dated the 16th November, 1962, which was served on the petitioner on 26th November, 1962. It is the common ground that subsequent to this date another panch of the Committee was elected as the Surpanch. Against the order of the District Collector, the petitioner has filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, impugning its validity on the ground that the provisions of section 28 (2) have not been complied with inasmuch as two-thirds of the total sanctioned strength of the Panchayat has not voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence.
(3.) The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, both before the learned Judge and before us, is that two-thirds of the total sanctioned strength comes to 6 and 5 panchas only having voted in favour of the no-confidence motion, there was no two-thirds majority as required by section 28 (2). It may be stated that on the relevant date the effective strength of the Panchayat Committee was only 7, one of the panchas having resigned even in April, 1962. If the effective strength cf the Panchayat Committee is to be taken as the basis for determining the two-thirds majority, there can be no doubt that the required majority voted for the no-confidence motion ; but. argues the learned counsel for the appellant, that it is the total sanctioned strength and not the effective strength that should be taken into account for the purpose of deciding whether there was the required two-thirds majority. Even assuming that to be the case, two-thirds of 8 would be 5.1/3 and we have not been shown any authority in support of the contention of the appellant that this 1/3 should be rounded of into one.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.