V.Suri Appa Rao, J. - (1.) THE writ appeals are directed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.27245 of 2010 and 17903 of 2010, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed W.P.No.27245 of 2010 and disposed of W.P.No.17903 of 2010 by setting aside the impugned proceedings i.e., in Form V dated 13-7-2010 initiated by the 3rd respondent for moving "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner with a liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh steps for moving "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner.
(2.) THE orders passed by the learned single Judge in both the writ petitions arising out of same proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent for moving "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner and a common question of law is involved in both the writ appeals, both the writ appeals are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Relevant facts lading to these writ appeals are as follows: The petitioner is the President of Rompicherla Mandal Praja Parishad. The term of office of the President or Vice President of the Mandal Praja Parishad as per Section 153 (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called as 'the Act, 1994') is 5 years from the date of appointment by the A.P. Election Commission to local bodies for the first meeting of the Mandal Parishad after the ordinary elections. The first meeting as per the notification of the State Election Commission, Secunderabad vide No.1589/SCC/B1/2006 dated 15-7-2006 was held on 22-7-2006 at 3 p.m., and the same was recorded by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Parishad, Rompicherla. Thus, the term of 4 years was completed only by 21-7-2010 as the petitioner was elected as President of Rompicherla Mandal on 22-7-2006 along with other Members and Vice President. Therefore, "No Confidence Motion" vide proceedings in Form V dated 13-7-2010, which was sought to be moved before the completion of 4 years term of office of Mandal Parishad President is illegal and violative of the provisions of Section 245 of the Act, 1994. The 3rd respondent issued a Notice dated 13-7-2010 informing her that he is convening a meeting on 13-7-2010 at 11 a.m., in the office of the Mandal Parishad, Rompicherla to consider the alleged proposed "No Confidence Motion", against which he filed W.P.No.17903 of 2010 and the same was disposed of on 08-10-2010, wherein the impugned proceedings are set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh steps for moving "No Confidence Motion". Earlier also, a representation was submitted on 22-01-2010 against the petitioner, but the same is failed. Thus, again for the 3rd time a representation was submitted against the petitioner on 27-10-2010 and the 3rd respondent issued Notice dated 28-10-2010 convening a meeting on 16-11-2010 for moving "No Confidence Motion" against her for the 3rd time. As per the second proviso of Section 245 of the Act, 1994, the said notice is prohibited as no such notice shall be made as against the petitioner more than once during his term of office. Therefore, no "motion for no confidence" can be moved against her. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P.No.27245 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the Notice issued in Form V dated 28-10-2010 by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, irregular and unconstitutional and violative of the principles laid down under the law and the provisions laid down under Section 245 of the Act, 1994.
(3.) AFTER hearing, the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that the impugned motion requires to be treated as a motion moved for the first time and that the bar under second proviso of Section 245 of the Act, 1994 is not attracted. The learned single Judge further observed that the petitioner having taken advantage of getting the previous motion invalidated and agreed for initiation of steps for fresh motion by the respondents in the previous writ petition i.e., W.P.No.17903 of 2010, the writ petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. Aggrieved by the above orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.17903 of 2010 and 27245 of 2010, the petitioner filed these two writ appeals mainly on the ground that the 3rd attempt to move "No Confidence Motion" against the petitioner is hit by second proviso to Section 245 of the Act, 1994.;