[Telangana Municipalities Act] No Inconsistencies Between 1965 & 2019 Acts: High Court Upholds No-Confidence Motion Against Municipality Chairpersons/Vice-Chairpersons
The Telangana High Court has held that even though the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, which replaced the 1965 Act, omitted some provisions on procedure, its legislative intent was self-evident in the creation of a provision providing for a no-confidence motion under Section 299, which, in the absence of contrary legislative intent cannot be labelled a statutory inconsistency between the...
The Telangana High Court has held that even though the Telangana Municipalities Act 2019, which replaced the 1965 Act, omitted some provisions on procedure, its legislative intent was self-evident in the creation of a provision providing for a no-confidence motion under Section 299, which, in the absence of contrary legislative intent cannot be labelled a statutory inconsistency between the two Acts.
The Court made these observations in dismissing a plea by the Chairpersons/ Vice-Chairpersons (petitioners) of various municipalities, against whom votes of no-confidence had been moved.
The petitioners had approached the Court challenging the no-confidence motions moved against them in various months of 2023. They contended that the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 does not stipulate a procedure for conducting a no-confidence motion, (as was done in the 1965 act) and in the absence of an established procedure, the motions for no-confidence could not be accepted
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti in an appeal filed challenging the order passed by a single judge.
The bench affirmed the order upholding the no-confidence motions passed against the petitioners with the observation that even though the statute may be silent regarding the procedure, Section 299 of the 2019 Act also refers to the Telangana Municipalities (Motion of No-Confidence in Chairperson/ Vice Chairperson) Rules, 2008 framed under the 1965 Act; which provide for a procedure and clear out any inconsistencies.
The Division Bench conceding to this view adopted the same and held:
“Thus, in the latter Act, i.e., 2019 Act, similar language has been used for the same purpose and for same object and therefore, it is undoubtedly true that in Section 37 of the 2019 Act, there are no pari materia provisions like Section 46(2) to 46(6) of the 1965 Act. However, the legislative intention to make a provision for motion of no-confidence is axiomatic. Mere omission of some of the statutory provisions, in the absence of any contrary legislative intention, cannot be held to be an inconsistency between two statutory provisions no provision in the 2019 act and no rules providing for consideration of no confidence motions.”
The main contention raised by the Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants was that legislative silence cannot be accepted on par with inconsistency and in the absence of a mechanism to deal with a proposed motion for no-confidence, the motion cannot be passed.
The Government Pleader for Municipalities on the other hand argued that the petitions were premature as the appellants had not challenged the 2019 Act or 2008 Rules and prayed to dismiss the appeals.
The Bench after consideration of both the provisions noted that a simple reading of section 299 would make it obvious that the 2008 Rules (that prescribe how a no-confidence is to be considered) would be applicable. Further, it was noted that the Act and the Rules when read together, provide for various aspects of the motion including notice of motion, manner of voting, majority, minutes of the meeting, power to remove etc. It
“It is trite law that the Court should not put an interpretation to a statutory provision which renders the provisions of the statute unworkable. Section 37 of the 2019 Act read together with 2008 Rules makes it clear that the same provide for time line for convening a meeting, 16 notice of meeting, for appointment of presiding officer, quorum of meeting, manner of voting, issuance of whip, intimation to Government.”
Thus agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge, the appeals were dismissed.
WRIT APPEAL Nos.38 of 2024 & Batch
Counsels for appellants: K.Vivek Reddy, Senior Counsel, and B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel.
Counsels for respondents: Pasham Krishna Reddy, Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Department