APHC010574592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29678/2025 Between: 1. INAGANURU MOHAN REDDY, S/O CHINA VENKAT REDDY, AGE 53 YEARS. PRESIDENT OF MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, VINJAMUR MANDAL, R/O VINJAMUR TOWN AND MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-522503. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, FJC8 PLUS P7G, NH 16 SERVICE RD, TADEPALLE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522501. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVALI DIVISION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, VINJAMURU 2 MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. KATAM PRASANNA, W/O SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 32 YESARS, R/O BUKKAPURAM VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. PALL PURUSHOTHAM, S/O CHINNA MALA KONDAIAH, AGE 53 YEARS R/O KATEPALLI VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. GUVVALA MALLIKARJUNA, S/O KONDAIAH, AGE 38 YEARS, R/O VUTUKURU VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. UNTA RATHAMMA, W/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGE 55 YEARS, R/O NALLAGONDIA VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 11. VANIPENTA HYMAVATHI, W/O VENKATA SUBBAREDDY, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O VINJAMUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 12. BASIREDDY SUMALATHA, W/O JAYANTH REDDY, AGE 37 YEARS, R/O NANDIGUNTA VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 13. ANANGI RAMANAIAH, S/O, AGE 37 YEARS, R/O NANDIGUNTA VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 14. SADA MOUNIKA, W/O PRASANTH, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O VINJAMUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings / order in R.C.No.A/14/2022 dated 27.04.2023 of the 6th respondent wherein he take a decision to restore the membership of the respondent Nos.7 to 14 as a Members of Mandal Praja Parishad (MPTCs) and also the impugned notice of Form-V issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, SPSR Nellore 3 District, dated 13.10.2025 by entertain Form-11 undated and letter dated 09.10.2025 from the respondent Nos.7 to 14, wherein it is intimated that he received proposal of no-confidence motion against the President of Mandal Praja Prishad, Vinjamurthereby for consider the no-confidence motion under section 245(1) for that the meeting will be conducted on 31.10.2025 at about 11.00 AM at MPP Office, Vinjamur basing on the Form-ll submitted by the respondent Nos.7 to 14 is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and competency and unconstitutional and violation of provisions under AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and its Rules contemplated under GO.Ms.No.200 of PR and RD (Mandal-1) date 28.04.1998 and also violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and beside violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the above said proceeding of the 6th respondent and 5th respondent as stated above and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order that to stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to impugned proceeding/order vide R.C.No.A/14/2022 dated 27.04.2023 of the 6th respondent and to pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an interim order that to stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to impugned notice of Form-V dated 13.10.2025, issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. TURAGA SAI SURYA The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: Questioning the impugned proceedings dated 27.04.2023 issued by the 6th respondent to take a decision to restore the membership of respondent Nos.7 to 14 as members of Mandal Praja Parishad (MPTC’s) and also the Form-V notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, dated 13.10.2025 by entertaining Form-II undated and letter dated 09.10.2025 from the respondent Nos.7 to 14, which is a proposal for no-confidence motion against the petitioner without jurisdiction and competency and unconstitutional and violation of provisions under AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and its Rules contemplated under GO.Ms.No.200 of PR and RD (Mandal-1) dated 28.04.1998, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 14. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 earlier got disqualified as members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) on the ground that they failed to attend three executive meetings by way of notice dated 25.03.2023 invoking Section 20(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1994’). Thereafter, on 13.10.2025, a notice enclosing Form II and a letter dated 09.10.2025 has been issued to the petitioner intimating that with an intention 5 to move no-confidence motion against the petitioner, a meeting was scheduled to be held on 31.10.2025 along with the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 who are ex-members of the MPTC. He further submitted that the membership of the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 has been restored by way of proceedings dated 27.04.2023 and the said fact of restoration was not brought to the notice of the MPTC. Though the restoration proceedings is of the year 2023, the same was not placed before the MPTC by virtue of the Section 21(2) of the Act, 1994, as such, there is clear violation of procedure contemplated under Section 21(2) the Act, 1994, and the proceedings dated 13.10.2025, is wholly unsustainable. He further submitted that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 cannot be permitted to proceed with the no- confidence motion meeting which is going to be held on 31.10.2025. If the said restoration proceedings dated 27.04.2023 and the notice for no confidence motion dated 13.10.2025 are allowed to subsist, it not only affects the rights of the petitioner, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat on written instructions dated 29.10.2025 of Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, contended that, the then MPDO has issued notice dated 25.03.2023 to respondent Nos.7 to 14 informing about their disqualification and further if they intend to continue their membership, they have to file appeal petition to the MPDO within 30 days of the receipt of said notice and if so, their membership will be 6 automatically restored. He further contended that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 filed their appeal petition dated 20.04.2023 and taking the same into consideration, by virtue of Section 21(2) of the Act, 1994, they were admitted to be restored as members of the MPTC. He further submitted that the petitioner, knowing very well about the said fact, filed this writ petition only to avoid the no confidence motion by raising all these allegations and questioning the proceedings dated 27.04.2023 at this length of time. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Sri K.Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 submitted that no prudent person can say that he is not aware of the proceedings dated 27.04.2023. The petitioner, being a President of the MPTC cannot question the same at this length of time. The writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of laches. He further contended that in the affidavit filed before this Court in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically admitted that respondent Nos.7 to 14 are continuing as members by way of proceedings dated 27.04.2023. There is no procedural irregularity or any illegality in passing the orders impugned, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 7 7. It is not in dispute that the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 got disqualified as members of the MPTC and the same was informed to them by way of proceedings dated 25.03.2023. Now the serious allegation that has been raised and urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without placing the restoration proceedings before the MPTC, passing a resolution to is unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1994, and the unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 14 cannot participate in the no confidence motion meeting scheduled to be held on 31.10.2025 by virtue of the notice dated 13.10.2025 issued by the 5th respondent. The contention so advanced by the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Senior Counsel is that by virtue of Section 21(2) of the Act, 1994, after disqualification if the members make any application for restoration of their membership within 30 days, the same will be automatically admitted to be restored. 8. A perusal of the restoration proceedings dated 27.04.2023 would indicate that 10 disqualified members of the MPTC have filed appeal for restoration of their membership on 20.04.2023 i.e., within the time stipulated under Section 21(2) of the Act, 1994. In this regard, Section 21(2) is extracted for quick reference. “(2) Where a person incurs the disqualification specified under clause (b) of section 20, the executive authority shall forthwith send a report in that regard to the District Panchayat Officer concerned, who shall, on satisfying himself after due verification, that the person has ex-facie ceased to be a member, intimate that fact by registered post to the member concerned and report the same to the gram panchayat forthwith. If such member applies for restoration of his membership to the gram panchayat within thirty days of the receipt 8 by him of such intimation, he shall be deemed to have been restored to his membership and the executive authority shall report the fact of such restoration to the gram panchayat at its next meeting: Provided that a member who is so restored to his membership again incurs the disqualification under the said clause (b), the gram panchayat may, on his application for restoration filed within a period of thirty days of the receipt by him of the intimation from the District Panchayat Officer regarding the disqualification restore him to his membership.” 9. A plain reading of Section 21(2) of the Act, 1994 makes it clear that upon the disqualification of any member of the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad, if an application for restoration is made within thirty days, such member shall be deemed to have been restored to membership. In view of the said provision, and on the basis of the applications submitted by unofficial respondent Nos. 7 to 14 on 20.04.2023, the MPDO restored their membership through proceedings dated 27.04.2023. The petitioner, however, contends that the MPDO lacked jurisdiction to effect such restoration under Section 21(2) of the Act, 1994. It is pointed out, in this regard, that by virtue of Section 156(2) of the Act, 1994, the District Panchayat Officer has been substituted by the Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot contend that the MPDO has no jurisdiction. 10. No reasons are coming forward as to why the petitioner did not challenge the proceedings dated 27.04.2023 at the earliest point of time. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has questioned the said proceedings at this length of time only with a view to 9 evade the no-confidence motion meeting scheduled on 31.10.2025.The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a resolution ought to have been passed prior to restoration, and therefore the impugned proceedings dated 27.04.2023 are untenable. However, no such requirement is envisaged under Section 21(2) of the Act, 1994. Even otherwise, there are no valid grounds raised or urged warranting interference of this Court. Further, the notice were not being on 13.10.2025 issued for no confidence motion. Therefore, there is no procedural irregularity or illegality in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 27.04.2023. The petitioner has not raised any valid points warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 31st October, 2025 RKS