No-Confidence Motion in a Gram Panchayat
The Ameenpur Gram Panchayat in Sangareddy district has 12 elected members. On 1 February 2025, five members give written notice to the District Panchayat Officer expressing no confidence in the Sarpanch. The DPO directs the Extension Officer (Panchayat) to convene a meeting. The meeting is held on 25 February 2025 and is presided over by the Extension Officer. Seven members vote in favour of the motion, four against, and one remains absent. The Sarpanch, who attended and protested, files a writ petition under Article 226. He contends that (i) the notice was invalid because it was not supported by two-thirds of the members, (ii) the meeting was held beyond 15 days, and (iii) the Extension Officer had no authority to preside. The State argues that the motion was carried by a majority of the total members and that the writ is not maintainable because the Sarpanch can approach the appellate authority.
1. Is the no-confidence notice valid?
Read the worked answer
Under Section 30 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, a no-confidence motion against a Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch requires a written notice by at least one-third of the total number of members of the Gram Panchayat. The total strength is 12; one-third is 4. Five members gave notice, so the notice is valid. The Sarpanch’s contention that two-thirds support is required is wrong. The requirement is not two-thirds. The notice also identifies the Sarpanch and the intention; no other defect is shown. The fact that the motion ultimately received seven votes does not convert the notice requirement into a two-thirds requirement.
2. What is the effect of the meeting being held on the 25th day and being presided over by the Extension Officer?
Read the worked answer
The Act requires the meeting to be convened within 15 days from the date of notice and to be presided over by the DPO or an officer authorised by him. The meeting was held on the 24th day after notice and was presided over by the Extension Officer. The 15-day period is a statutory safeguard; it is not merely directory, because it protects the Sarpanch from an indefinite hanging motion. The DPO’s direction to the Extension Officer may amount to authorisation, but the record must show a valid authorisation. If the authorisation is absent, the presiding officer lacked authority. Both defects go to the validity of the motion. The fact that seven members voted in favour does not cure a defective meeting. The motion is liable to be quashed.
3. Is the writ petition maintainable?
Read the worked answer
Article 226 is available against a statutory body for violation of statutory procedure. The no-confidence motion affects the Sarpanch’s statutory office and involves public law. The mere existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, especially where the challenge is to jurisdiction and procedural illegality. The court will not decide the no-confidence on political merits; it will confine itself to legality. Since the meeting was held beyond the prescribed period and the presiding officer’s authority is doubtful, the writ is maintainable. The State’s objection does not bar the petition. The court should quash the resolution and, if the law permits, direct a fresh meeting in accordance with Section 30.