Section 245 A.P. Panchayat Raj Act: “Total Number of Members” for No-Confidence is the Voting-Eligible Effective Strength (Vacancies Excluded)

1. Introduction

The writ petition arose from a no-confidence motion initiated against the petitioner, the President of the Kurnool Mandal Praja Parishad. The Mandal Praja Parishad’s sanctioned strength was 23 members, but at the relevant time there were four vacancies (arising from deaths/resignations).

The petitioner challenged the authorities’ decision to proceed with the no-confidence motion on the basis that the motion was not “seconded / supported” by the requisite two-thirds of the total members under Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the authorities’ approach. It held that, in view of the Explanation to Section 245 and binding Division Bench authority, “total number of members” refers to members entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned, and that existing vacancies are excluded for computing the required majority.

Applying that interpretation, the Court treated the relevant strength as 19 (23 minus 4 vacancies), and held that two-thirds of 19 equals 13 (as per the fraction rule in the Explanation to Section 245(2)).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

• Manujusna Kadam and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1998 AP 195)
  Role in the case: Cited by the petitioner to argue that the statute distinguishes between “total strength” and “total number of members,” and that “total number of members” should not be reduced in a manner that changes the statutory threshold.
  How the Court treated it: The Court noted this earlier Division Bench authority but ultimately preferred the later and more directly applicable Division Bench interpretation (below), especially because Section 245 contains a specific definitional Explanation.
• Gogineni Koteswara Rao and another v. Government of A.P., Panchayat Raj Department and others ((1999) 3 ALD 462)
  Role in the case: This was the decisive authority relied upon by the respondents and accepted by the Court. The Division Bench interpretation, read with Section 245’s Explanation, treats “total number of members” as those entitled to vote, and states that casual vacancies (e.g., death/resignation/non-holding of elections) are not included for no-confidence computations.
  Influence: The Court found this authority factually akin and binding, and applied its reasoning to exclude the four vacancies.
• Kolapalli Rajeswara Rao v. Dy. Registrar of Co-op.Societies (1993(2) APLJ (HC) 367), B.Jangi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1972 AP 307), Vishwarasaro Dabijarao Ghuge v. Vallabhdas Sheonarayan Sharam and Others (AIR 1966 Bom 149), Mangala Prasad Jaiswal v. District Magistrate and others (AIR 1971 ALL 77)
  Role in the case: These were cited by the petitioner as persuasive support for a stricter “total strength/static denominator” approach.
  How the Court treated them: The Court declined to examine them in detail because (i) they were not binding on the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (in the case of other High Courts), and (ii) the matter was governed by a binding Division Bench ruling interpreting Section 245 with its specific Explanation.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning turned on the text of Section 245, particularly the Explanation that defines “total number of members” for the purposes of no-confidence motions. The Court read the Explanation as focusing on the class of members “entitled to vote in the election to the office concerned”.

The Court then adopted the construction articulated in Gogineni Koteswara Rao and another v. Government of A.P., Panchayat Raj Department and others: existing vacancies caused by death/resignation (and similar casual vacancies) are not counted in the denominator when computing the statutory fractions for moving and carrying the motion. On that basis:

• Sanctioned strength: 23
• Vacancies at the time: 4
• Voting-eligible effective strength: 19
• Two-thirds of 19 = 12.66…, rounded per statute to 13

The Court also observed that accepting the petitioner’s “23 as a static denominator” approach could, in practical terms, undermine Section 245’s operability where vacancies persist—thereby risking statutory redundancy in functioning local bodies.

3.3 Impact

The decision reinforces a clear operational rule for no-confidence motions under Section 245: the denominator is the effective voting-eligible strength, not the sanctioned full strength, where vacancies exist.

Practical implications include:

• Lower numerical threshold during vacancy periods: No-confidence motions may be easier to carry where seats are vacant, because the two-thirds computation is on the reduced effective strength.
• Administrative clarity: Presiding/competent authorities have judicial backing to compute “two-thirds” after excluding vacancies, provided the exclusions reflect members not entitled to vote due to vacancies.
• Litigation focus shifts: Future disputes may concentrate less on “sanctioned vs. effective” strength and more on whether a person is “entitled to vote” (e.g., questions around suspension, disqualification, or disputed membership), because the statute expressly includes suspended members for computing total number.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• No-confidence motion: A statutory mechanism by which elected members can remove an office-bearer (here, Mandal Praja Parishad President) by passing a motion meeting specified procedural and voting thresholds.
• “Total number of members” (Section 245): Not merely “sanctioned seats,” but those entitled to vote for the office concerned, applied in the manner the statute and binding precedent require; vacancies do not inflate the denominator.
• Two-thirds majority and fraction rule: Section 245(2)’s Explanation directs rounding: fractions below 0.5 are ignored; 0.5 and above count as one. Thus, two-thirds of 19 (12.66…) becomes 13.
• Writ of Mandamus (Article 226): A constitutional remedy directing a public authority to perform (or refrain from) an act. Here, the petitioner sought to restrain/undo the no-confidence process as allegedly contrary to Section 245.

5. Conclusion

The judgment affirms that under Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the “total number of members” for moving/carrying a no-confidence motion is computed with reference to the effective voting-eligible strength, and existing vacancies are excluded. Relying on the binding Division Bench ruling in Gogineni Koteswara Rao and another v. Government of A.P., Panchayat Raj Department and others, the Court rejected the petitioner’s “static denominator” argument and dismissed the writ petition.

In broader terms, the decision strengthens functional governance in local bodies by ensuring that statutory removal mechanisms are not rendered impracticable due to vacancies, while keeping the process tethered to the legislature’s expressed definition and rounding rules.