S.37 Telangana Municipalities Act | Merely Scheduling Meetings Doesn't Equate To Convening Them, Quorum Of 2/3rd Members Required: HC

The Court, through Justice T. Vinod Kumar, clarified that a "meeting" requires an actual assembly of persons, and without a congregation of members before the presiding officer, it cannot be said that a meeting was convened. The mere scheduling or postponement of a meeting does not equate to its convening or failure to convene due to lack of quorum.

“Out of the total number of members, in order to constitute a valid quorum for the meeting to be convened, two-thirds of the total numbers of members viz., 18 members are required to be present, by congregating at the place whereat the meeting is to he held before the presiding officer. It is only when such congregation takes place and the Presiding Officer on taking head-count finds that required number of members are there to constitute a quorum at the first instance or adjourns the same to some other time of the same day, only in such a circumstance would have to be construed as first meeting. Without such congregation of the members before the Presiding Officer, it cannot be said that a meeting was convened.”

Background

The case arose from a dispute in a municipal corporation. The petitioner, Jakka Venkat Reddy, the chairperson of the corporation, challenged the validity of a second no-confidence motion scheduled against him. A previous meeting scheduled for June 5, 2024, had been postponed by the District Collector without being convened. Subsequently, a second Form-I notice was submitted, and a new meeting was scheduled for August 9, 2024.

The petitioner argued that the postponement of the first scheduled meeting should be considered as a meeting that could not be held for want of quorum, thus invoking the one-year bar on subsequent motions. He contended that the District Collector lacked the power to postpone the meeting indefinitely and that the acceptance of a second Form-I notice was illegal.

Conversely, the respondents maintained that the June 5 meeting was never convened, owing to there being no congregation of members and thus the one-year bar was not applicable. They pointed out that the petitioner had not challenged the postponement immediately and had benefited from it for two months.

Court's observations

In its ruling, the Court held that the one-year bar on subsequent no-confidence motions applies only when a properly convened meeting fails to carry the motion by a two-thirds majority, or when the meeting could not be held for want of quorum after following the prescribed procedure of waiting and adjournment. The Court emphasized that without an actual gathering of members, it cannot be said that a meeting was convened.

“Further, it is also to be noted that upon congregation of members at the designated place, the Presiding Officer declaring the meeting as validly convened having a required quorum, the motion is required to be put to vote. Till such time, the meeting is convened at the designated place before the presiding officer at the first instance, if adjourned to some other time of the same date for want of quorum, and even then quorum not being available, only in such a situation, it can be said that the meeting as not having been held for want for quorum thereby bringing the bar of one year into operation.”

Applying the Mischief Rule of interpretation, the Court warned against potential misuse of the provisions where chairpersons could manipulate the process to invoke the one-year bar without an actual meeting taking place. Relying on Tipparthi Chandra Mouli the Bench also clarified that there is no restriction on giving multiple Form-I notices or the District Collector considering them and issuing Form-II notices, as long as a valid meeting has not been convened and concluded.

“Further, till such a meeting is convened validly where the business is transacted or the meeting is dissolved and the notice of meeting lapses, this court is of the prima facie view that there is no restriction for giving multiple Form-I or the 2 nd respondent considering the same and convening the meeting by issuing Form-II.”

The Court dismissed the petitioner's application for interim relief, finding no prima facie case. This judgment provides significant clarity on the procedural aspects of no-confidence motions in municipal bodies and underscores the importance of actual congregation for a meeting to be considered convened under Section 37 of the Telangana Municipalities Act.

WRIT PETITION No.21205 of 2024

Jakka Venkat Reddy v. The State of Telangana and others

Counsel for petitioners: A. Venkatesh, Sr. Counsel for S. Nagesh Reddy.

Counsel for the respondent: T.Rajanikanth Reddy, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Adv. Vinayaka Krishna; C. Raghu, Sr. Counsel for L.Ravinder Sr. Counsel.

Click Here To Read/Download Order