ORDER
V. Bhaskara Rao, J.
1. These three Writ Petitions arise out of a Motion of No-Confidence proposed to be moved against the Vice-President of Rentachinthala Mandal Praja Parishad of Guntur District. As common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 31876/1998 was elected as Vice-President of the said Mandal Praja Parishad which comprises of 12 members. The petitioner in W.P. No. 31877/1998 is the President and petitioners in W.P. No. 32161 /1998 are Members thereof. Six Members belonged to Congress Party and six to Telugu Desam Party. Eight out of 12 members gave a written notice of intention to move No Confidence Motion against the petitioner and on receipt of such a Motion, respondent No. 2 issued notice in Form No. V in R.C. No. 2167/98-C, dated 28-10-1998 informing all the Members that a meeting of Mandal Praja Parishad, Rentachinthala shall be held at the Office of Mandal Praja Parishad on 20-11-1998 at 2 p.m. for considering the said Motion of No-Confidence.
3. It is the case of the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions that the Notice of intention to move the Motion is required to be given in Form No. II as contemplated by Section 245 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for short the 'Act', and Rule 2 of the Rules made thereunder, but the same was not given in Form No. II. It is also their case that the said notice of Motion was not delivered by 2 Members who signed such Motion as required by law. A notice is said to have been given to respondent No. 2 requesting him to furnish photostat copy of Form No. II on 5-11-1998 and it was received by him on 6-11-1998, but there was no response from him and it is clear from his silence that no notice in Form No. II was given and hence the meeting proposed to be held on 20-11-1998 is illegal.
4. In W.P. No. 32161/1998 first petitioner claimed that he is the Whip of Congress Party. After setting out the Rules issued under Notification dated 27-9-1997 governing moving and carrying out No-Confidence Motion against Mandal Praja Parishad President, Vice-President, Zilla Parishad etc. together with the ambit of Rules 2 to 17, it is stated that no procedure is laid down for issuing a Whip and service thereof and hence, the Rules are deficient and thus, it is evident that the Rule making authority has not considered all the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is further asserted by him that he issued Whip to all the Members of the Congress Party of whom four have accepted the direction to vote against the Motion and 2 Members Pammi Venkateswar Reddy and Smt. Anjamma refused to take notice. As no procedure is prescribed for service of Whip notice and no alternative procedure is prescribed, he could not enforce the same by personal service. However, the Whip was released to the Press as well as by Regd. Post Certificate of Posting, but the addressees are not found. In these circumstances he approached this Court for necessary relief.
5. The relief sought for in all three Writ Petitions is that the meeting convened on 20-11-1998 for the purpose of considering the No-Confidence Motion is sought to be declared as illegal and contrary to law.
6. Separate counter affidavits have been filed in all the Writ Petitions. All the material averments have been denied. It is asserted that Notice of No-Confidence Motion signed by 8 members in Form No. II together with Motion of No-Confidence was presented to respondent No. 1 by 2 Members on 27-10-1998 and respondent No. 1 in turn issued notices to all the Members in Form No. V enclosing a copy of proposed No-Confidence Motion on 28-10-1998 convening the said meeting at the Office of Mandal Praja Parishad on 20-11-1998 at 2 p.m. It is denied that the Members have not given the Notice of No-Confidence Motion in Form No. II and it is asserted that it was in fact given in Form No. II along with a separate No-Confidence Motion. The Writ Petitions are, therefore, said to be devoid of merit.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General who appeared for respondent No. 1 has made the relevant record available for perusal.
8. Sri C. Nageswar Rao, Advocate representing Sri Ella Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners in all the Writ Petitions strenuously contended that Notice of No-Confidence Motion was not issued in Form No. II and it was not presented by 2 Members as required by Section 245 of the Act and hence, the meeting convened on 20-11-1998 is illegal. He further contended that there was no response from respondent No. 1 to the notice given by the petitioner seeking a copy of the said Notice of No-Confidence and that itself shows that it was not given in the required form. Thus, he urged that writ petitions may be allowed and the notice of No-Confidence Motion may be quashed.
9. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand contended that the notice of Motion signed by 8 Members is very much in the prescribed Form No. II and it was presented by 2 Members, who have given their description and signed the same in token of presentation of the said notice of Motion before respondent No. 1 and they have also enclosed the proposed No-Confidence Motion to Form No. II. He argued that a copy of Form No. II is not required to be given to the Members and it is meant for office use of respondent No. 1 and hence copy of Form No. II was not given and on the contrary copy of Motion of No-Confidence which was enclosed to Form No. II was furnished to all the Members along with Form No. V notice and hence, no illegality is committed either by the aforesaid Members or by respondent No. 1 and all the requirements of law have been complied with in convening the meeting on 20-11-1998.
10. I applied my anxious consideration to all the above contentions and perused the record, R.C. No. 2167/98-C of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsaraopet. Main thrust of the learned Counsel for the petitioners' contention being that notice of No-Confidence Motion not being given in Forum II, I scrutinized the record to see whether such a notice is in Form II or not. At page 1 itself the notice is available. It bears the signatures of 5 Members and thumb impressions of 3 of them. It also contains signatures of 2 members under the typed matter 'delivered in person by Sarvasri.....' The endorsement and initials of the Revenue Divisional Officer shows that it was received by him on 27-10-1998 at 11 a.m. I compared the same with the prescribed form and I find that it is exactly in the same prescribed form. At page 3 of the file the proposed No-Confidence Motion typed in Telugu is available and it also bears the signatures of 5 Members and thumb impressions of three Members. Thus, the record discloses that notice of No-Confidence Motion in Form II signed by 8 Members is accompanied by the proposed Motion of No-Confidence and the same is presented by 2 Members in person to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 27-10-1998 at 11 a.m.
11. The next question is whether notice in Form V is accompanied by proposed Motion of No-Confidence or not. As indicated above, proposed No-Confidence Motion is typewritten in Telugu and it also bears signatures/ thumb impressions of 8 members and it is enclosed to Form II. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that notice in Form V is not accompanied by the proposed Motion of No-Confidence. Learned Additional Advocate General not only refuted the above contention, but he also pointed out that a Xerox copy of the said proposed Motion is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 31876/1998 as one of the material papers. It is true that a Xerox copy of the very same Motion of No-Confidence signed by 5 members and containing thumb impressions of 3 members in the original file R.C. No. 2167/98-C is found in the material papers in W.P. No. 31876/1998. The contention for the learned Counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, devoid of any merit.
12. Next contention is that Revenue Divisional Officer has not furnished Xerox copy of Form II notice as sought for by the petitioners through his representation dated 5-11-1998. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that Form II notice is meant for the Office of Revenue Divisional Officer and it need not be furnished to the members and hence, no action was called for on the representation dated 5-11-1998. He came heavily upon the petitioners stating that the above representation was designed for the purpose of making out a case for Writ Petition and to seek postponement of the meeting convened for the purpose of consideration of No-Confidence Motion and such machinations should not be encouraged. A perusal of Rule 3 of the relevant Rules framed in G.O. Ms. No. 200. P.R. & R.D. (M.I) Department, dated 28-4-1998 discloses that upon receiving notice of intention of not less than half of the members to move a Motion of No-Confidence, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall issue a notice to all the members in Form V convening a meeting with not less than 15 clear days and that notice shall be accompanied by a copy of proposed motion of No-Confidence. Evidently, the members are not entitled to Form II notice and hence, there is force in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General. In a democracy not only the office bearers should be elected to discharge certain public functions, but they should be allowed to function freely and effectively. At the same time there should be some mechanism to check their mal-functioning. In my view, No-Confidence Motion is one such check and undoubtedly such power should be exercised with utmost circumspection. When 8 Members chose to move a No-Confidence Motion, it is not proper for the concerned office bearers to cling on to the office by hook or crook. The representation of the petitioner dated 5-11-1998 is no other than a camouflage and a ruse to manipulate some cause of action to go to a Court and seek postponement of the meeting. Obviously, the intention is to avoid the evil with a further design to win over the members by horse trading. In my view, the Courts should not play into the hands of such unscrupulous elements and become spring boards for this kind of litigation. Whenever such situation arises safest course should be adopted and ex parte orders, as far as possible, may be avoided. At best, meeting can be permitted to go on and the result of the No-Confidence Motion can be directed to be postponed until further orders.
13. The petitioners filed these Writ Petitions and obtained interim stay of the impugned notice and thereby the meeting that was scheduled for 20-11-1998 had to be postponed. The result is that once again fresh notices will have to be issued with clear 15 days intervening and the whole process will have to be repeated. I am of the considered view that such a cumbersome process will have to be avoided by allowing the meeting to go on and by withholding the result if need be.
14. For the above reasons, I am unable to find any merit in these Writ Petitions and hence, they are liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. It is needless to say that respondent No. 2 will be free to convene a meeting of Mandal Praja Parishad by issuing notices in Form V with 15 days clear intervening as required by law. In the circumstances indicated above and with a view to discourage filing of Writ Petitions of this nature, costs of Rs. 5,000/- are imposed in each case and they are payable to the A.P. Legal Services Authority, High Court of A.P. within four weeks, failing which the same will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.