A no-confidence motion for the second time, cannot be initiated against the same Upa-Sarpanch before the expiry of two years from the date of the first no-confidence motion as per section 30 of the T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. This was held by The Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Amarnath Goud who said, “no such notice shall be made against the same Upa-Sarpanch more than twice during his term of office and the second no-confidence motion shall not be initiated before the expiry of two years from the date of first no-confidence motion.” in Sri Sundara Pandian Kalidasan Vs. State of Telangana and Others [ W.P.No.12704 of 2021].
The brief facts of the case are, the petitioner was elected as the Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in 2019. On 27.02.2021, respondent no.4 served a notice to the petitioner informing about the No-confidence motion. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming that such a motion was not in accordance with section 30 of the T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018. However, such a petition was dismissed and the court gave liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law. The respondents again issued a notice dated 26.5.2021 informing the petitioner about the no-confidence motion. The petition has yet again filed a petition before the High court praying for the petition to be dismissed.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second no-confidence motion was violative of Rule 2 of the Rules relating to no confidence motion in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.4.1998 where it mentions that a no-confidence motion can be initiated against a person only once during his term. He also submitted that section 30 of the act prescribes a two-year period, on completion of which, a second no-confidence motion can be re-instated. The counsel for the respondent contends that the first no-confidence motion dated 27-02-2021 and the second no-confidence motion dated 26-05-2021 are the same motions which are planned and executed in a longer time frame and not fresh ones.
The learned judge after listening to the arguments of both the parties, adjudged that the no-confidence motion passed during the second time was not in accordance with law. To arrive at this, the Hon’ble judge analyzed the relevant provisions in law. Section 30 of the act deals with the ‘moving’ and not ‘passing’ of the no confidence motion. “Once action is initiated under Section 30, it means that the action is put in motion. It is not necessary that the entire action is to be completed. Section 30 does not speak about whether the no confidence motion is passed or not. On the other hand, the Rule only contemplates the procedure to be adopted. Since the action initiated under section 30 is set aside in the earlier Writ Petition, it has to be treated as first instance”.
Thus, applying the above mentioned rationale, the court allowed this writ petition on the grounds that the respondents did not follow the legal provisions. The court also set aside the notice issued by Respondent no.4 dated 26.05.2021
