The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed a writ petition filed by the President of the Kurnool Mandal Praja Parishad, thereby upholding the no-confidence motion initiated against her by members of the parishad.
The case arose from a dispute over the interpretation of Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Petitioner challenged the continuation of the no-confidence proceedings held on December 2, 2025, contending that the motion lacked the mandatory two-thirds majority when calculated against the parishad’s full sanctioned strength of 23 members.
At the time of the motion, however, four seats in the Kurnool Mandal Praja Parishad were vacant due to deaths and resignations. Government authorities treated the effective strength as 19 members and proceeded with the meeting on that basis. This interpretation was strongly opposed by the petitioner, who argued that vacancies could not reduce the “total number of members” prescribed under the Act.
After examining the statutory provisions and earlier judicial precedents, Justice Ravi Cheemalapati held that the law clearly distinguishes between sanctioned strength and voting strength. The court noted that the explanation to Section 245 explicitly states that the “total number of members” refers only to those entitled to vote at the time of the meeting, excluding casual vacancies.
The Court referred to Gogineni Koteswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1999) 3 ALD 462, which clarified that vacancies arising from death, resignation, or unfilled constituencies must be excluded while computing the required majority for a no-confidence motion. Accepting the petitioner’s interpretation, the court observed, would make the statutory mechanism unworkable and defeat legislative intent.
Applying this principle to the present case, the court held that two-thirds of 19 members, amounting to 13 votes, was sufficient to validly carry the motion. Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the no-confidence proceedings.
Appearances
Counsel for the Petitioner: VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA
Counsel for the Respondents:
1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
2.VARUN BYREDDY
3.GP FOR REVENUE
4.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps, M.P.Ps, Gram Panchayats
