HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.33422 of 2010 Date : 7-2-2011 Between : Lingala Padma Rao s/o.Bhumaiah … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Giri Krishna Counsel for respondents Nos.1 & 2 : G.P. for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 16 : Smt.K.Rajitha The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notice dated 18-12-2010 of respondent No.2 issued in Form-V prescribed under the Rules relating to Motion of no confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice- President of Mandal Parishad or Vice Chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishad, which were notified in G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, (Mandal-I), dated 28- 4-1998 (for short “the Rules”). I have heard Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Smt.Rajitha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 16. The petitioner is the President of Mandal Praja Parishad of Medak. He received notice dated 18-12-2010 from respondent No.2 wherein he was informed that on 6- 11-2011 at 11.00 a.m. a meeting of the Mandal Parishad will be held to discuss on the no confidence motion. This notice is questioned in this Writ Petition on three grounds, namely, that respondent No.2 failed to maintain 15 clear days notice between the date of service of notice and the scheduled meeting; copy of Form-II is not annexed to Form-V and Form-V is ambiguous and failed to indicate whether the proposed motion of no confidence was against the President or the Vice President. This court, by order dated 31-12-2010 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned notice. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit. An application for imleadment was filed by 13 persons of Mandal Praja Parishath. By a separate order passed today, the said application has been allowed and the applicants have been impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 16 to the Writ Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 it is inter alia stated that a notice of intention signed by 15 M.P.T.C. members was handed over in Form-II in the office of respondent No.2 on 14-12-2010 along with a resolution passed on the same day expressing no confidence in the petitioner; that as per the Rules, a meeting for discussing the no confidence motion issued in Form-II shall be convened not later than 30 days of receipt of the notice by issuing 15 days notice in Form-V and that after receipt of report from the Mandal Parishad Development Officer on 16- 12-2010, respondent No.2 issued Form-V in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules by fixing 6-1-2011 as the date of the meeting for considering the motion. It is further stated that the office Attender by name M.Venkatesh went to serve notice to the petitioner on 20-12-2010 at about 11.30 a.m. and that when he found that the door of the petitioner’s house was locked, he has affixed the notice on the door and recorded the same on another copy of Form-V under report to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer. It is therefore pleaded that there was proper service of notice on the petitioner. The counter affidavit is however silent on non-service of Form-II notice. At the hearing, Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the submissions on the basis of the above noted pleas of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj stated that it is specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit that the notice was served through affixture on 20-12-2010 as the petitioner was not available in the house which was locked. Rule 3 of the Rules inter alia lays down the method of service of notice, which includes giving or tendering the notice to the member; if the member is not found, by leaving such notice at his last known place of residence or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family. The petitioner has himself pleaded that he was not in town as he attended the programme in the A.P. Rural Development Academy held at Hyderabad from 20-12-2010 to 22-12-2010. This supports the version of the respondents that as the petitioner was not available, the notice was affixed on the door of the petitioner’s house. As the said notice was affixed on 20-12-2010 which is one of the prescribed modes of service, it conforms to the Rule which prescribes a minimum of 15 days’ notice. As regards the second submission, the learned counsel is unable to point out any provision which prescribes service of Form-II notice along with Form-V notice. Therefore, non-enclosure of Form-II notice does not vitiate the motion of no confidence. With regard to the submission relating to vagueness of Form-V, a perusal thereof would show that the notice which is in Telugu is in the prescribed proforma which pertains to a motion against the President/Vice-President of the Mandal. In the notice as served on the petitioner, the words “Vice President” following the word “President” have not been struck off. A careful perusal of this notice does not indicate as to whether the proposed motion was against the President or the Vice-President. Therefore, the notice suffers from serious ambiguity. The learned Government Pleader stated that in Form-II notice, it is specifically mentioned that motion is intended against the President. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that Form-II notice was in fact enclosed to Form-V. There was therefore no scope for the petitioner to know the contents of Form-II. The petitioner is an elected representative heading the Mandal. Such an elected President cannot be dislodged unless the procedure prescribed therefor is scrupulously followed. As the notice served on the petitioner is inherently defective, in view of the ambiguity noted above, no motion can be carried out in pursuance of such a notice. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is allowed on the short ground that Form-V notice is ambiguous. The impugned notice is accordingly quashed. This will not however prevent respondent No.2 from issuing Form-V notice afresh strictly in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 7-2-2011 Note: Furnish copy in a week AM