IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19065 of 2008 Between: 1 Relangi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana S/o.Chanti @ Satyam Door No. 1-3, Pidimgoyyi, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. 2 Angara Sita W/o.Krishna R/o.D.No.2-103, Bommuru. 3 Nakka Syambabu R/o.D.No.4-1582, Rajavolu, Rajahmundry Rural. 4 Gompa Srinivas S/o.Apparao R/o.Door No. 14-71, Konerupeta, Pidimgoyyi, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. 5 A.Ananda Rao S/o.Appa Rao R/o.Door No. 5-64, Kothapeta, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry , East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Offricer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Panduri Apparao S/o.Simhachalam Door No. 20-1056, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 P.Ravindranath S/o.Subba Rao Door No. 5-83, Kothapet, Dowlaiswaram, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. 5 Palivela Lalitha Devi W/o.Rambabu R/o.3-989, 'C' Block, Satelite City, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. 6 Smt.Muppidi Mani W/o.Ganesh 2-321, Bommuru Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. 7 Smt.Chepala Bhavani W/o.Ganesh Door No.3-67, Ramakrishna Nagar, Hukumpet, Rajahmundry Rural. 8 Smt.Marina Mangayamma W/o.Dora Abbai D.No.13-132, Venkatagiri, Pidimgoyyi, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. 9 Pilli Balasubrahmanyam S/o.Nagaraju D.No.5-99, Raghavendra Nagar, Bommuru Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District. 10 P.L.Ganapathi Rao S/o.Mulaswamy R/o.D.No.3-549, Ramakrishna Nagar, Hukumpet, Rajahmundry Rural. East Godavari 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 will be pleased to examine the proceedings in Ref.B/4755/2008 dated 19.08.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent and the other connected records, declare that the letter dated 18.08.2008 alleged to have been signed by 29 signatories and brought to the notice of 2nd respondent and the consequential proceedings in Ref.No.B/4755/2008 dated 19.08.2008 of the 2nd respondent are illegal, contrary to Section 245 (1) read with Rule 2 of the Statutory Rules issued under Sec. 268 in G.O.Ms.No.200 PR & RD (Mandal-I) Dept., dated 28.4.1998 and consequently issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction setting them aside and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA RAO PHILKHANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners are the members of Rajahmundry Rural Mandal Parishad. They feel aggrieved by the steps taken by the second respondent for convening a meeting of the Mandal Parishad on 06.09.2008 for discussing a motion of no conﬁdence against the President of the Mandal Parishad. The petitioners contend that there was no requisition in terms of the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998. They plead that no requisition in Form-II prescribed under the Rules was delivered to the second respondent and still he has issued notice under Form-V. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for some of the contesting respondents among respondents 3 to 10. Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Rules made thereunder are speciﬁc to the eﬀect that a meeting to take up a motion of no conﬁdence against a President of a Mandal Parishad can be conducted only on the strength of a notice in Form-II issued by not less than half of the total members. The notice in Form-II, in turn, is to be accompanied by the proposed motion also. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has produced the record. Except a general request said to have been made by 29 members of the Mandal Parishad, there is no notice in Form-II, much less, a draft motion of no conﬁdence. Therefore, there is a serious defect in the process and the notice in form-V issued by the second respondent becomes untenable. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _​___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.09.2008 kdl