IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21137 of 2004 Between: Smt. Kota Gowri, W/o. Kota Jogi Naidu, @ Ravi, Hindu, R/o. Ravivalasa Village, Garugubilli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No. 1 in issuing the impugned notice in Ref No. 2488/2004-A dated 25-10-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and also violation of the provisions of the section 245(1)(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and consequentially direct the respondents to allow the petitioner and continue as Mandal Praja Parishad President of Garugubilli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.S.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following : ORDER Notice issued in Form-V dated 25.10.2004 by the Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram-first respondent herein proposing to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad for considering ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner, who is the president of Mandal Praja Parishad, Garugubilli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when a requisition under Form-II is issued, it is incumbent upon the Mandal Parishad Development Officer to verify the signatures of the members, who expressed their intention to move the ‘No Confidence Motion, but the same was not done in this case. Secondly, it is contended that Form-II notice has also not been enclosed along with the impugned notice. When the Members of the Mandal Parishad expressed ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner and signed Form-II notice, which was accepted and subsequent notice in Form-V is also been issued, that itself shows that the first respondent verified the signatures and only after satisfying the genuineness of the same, issued the impugned notice. Since it is clearly mentioned in the impugned notice that a copy of the proposal for ‘No Confidence Motion’ is enclosed, the petitioner cannot contend that such a Form-II notice has not been enclosed along with the impugned notice. In view of the same, I see no merits in any of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY. J. 18th November, 2004 tsr. To 1 The Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 3. Two C.C.s to Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.(OUT) 4 Two C.D. copies.