Vacancies Existing On Date Of No-Confidence Motion Meeting Should Be Excluded From Total Number Of Members While Determining 2/3rd Majority: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Writ Petition was filed before the High Court questioning the action of the respondent authorities in carrying forward the No Confidence Motion, without considering the fact that the same was not seconded by 2/3rd majority of the total members of Kurnool Praja Parishad, and the same was arbitrary and violative of Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

The Single Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held, “By applying the analogy of the decision in Gogineni Koteswara Rao and another (supra 6), the four (04) vacancies exist as on the date of no confidence motion meeting shall be excluded from out of the total number of members. Upon such exclusion, the total number of members that are entitled to vote shall be taken as “19” and two thirds of “19” can carry with the motion for want of confidence, which would come to “13” as per Section 245 of the Act.”

Advocate Vivekananda Virupaksha represented the Petitioner, while Government Pleader Rural Dev represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner is the President of Kurnool Mandal Praja Parishad, which has 23 members, out of which there are 4 vacancies. Some of the Members of the Mandal Praja Parishad moved a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. As per Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, the motion for want of confidence is to be moved by not less than one-half of the total members and is to be carried with the support of two-thirds of the total number of members. Some of the members of the Parishad moved a motion expressing a want of confidence in the petitioner by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion by not less than one-half of the total number of members. The same was claimed to be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution and a clear violation of Section 245 of the Act.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that Section 245 of the Act provides that a motion expressing want of confidence shall be moved by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Mandal Parishad, and it requires a vote of two-thirds of Members for carrying it.

“The explanation clearly explains the expression “total member of members” as all the members who are entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned, but irrespective of any vacancy existing in the office of such members, at the time of meeting, the observations made in the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for respondents, appears to be the only reasonable conclusion deducible, which says that any casual vacancy existing, for example, due to death or resignation or due to the fact that elections to certain constituencies have not been held, would not be included in the total number of members for the purpose of no-confidence motion”, the order read.

The Bench referred to the decision in Gogineni Koteswara Rao and another v. Government of A.P., Panchayat Raj Department and others, wherein it has been observed that any casual vacancy existing would not be included in the total number of members for the purpose of a no-confidence motion. The Bench held that the 4 vacancies that exist as on the date of no confidence motion meeting should be excluded from the total number of members. Upon such exclusion, the Bench noted that two-thirds of 19 can carry the motion for want of confidence, which would come to 3 as per Section 245.

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: D. Venkateswaramma v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (Case No.: Writ Petition No.: 34623/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Vivekananda Virupaksha

Respondent: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, Advocate Varun Byreddy, Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Order