IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19503 of 2008 Between: Smt. Kanathala Rathnavali, W/o. Nagender Rao, Mandal Parishad, R/. Govindaraopet Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collecgtor, Warangal District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub Collector/Assistant Collector, Mulugu, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, roder or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the proceedings initiated by the 3rd respondent in proposing to conduct "No Conﬁdence Motion" against the president, Mandal Parishad, Govindara rao on 8-9-2008 by issuing Form-V in his proceedings No. F/2182/2008, dt. 22-8-2008 is illegal, void abinito, and contrary to the provisions of AP Panchayat Raj Act, and Rules made there under and may be further set aside the Form-V issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No. F/2182/2008, dt. 22-8-2008 in the interest of justice and enquiry and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.J.RAKESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19503 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as a President of the Mandal Parishad, Govindaraopet Village & Mandal, Warangal District, in the year 2006. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Mulugu, 3rd respondent herein, issued a notice, dated 22.08.2008, in Form-V of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998 (for short ‘the Rules’), informing the petitioner and other Members, that the meeting of the Mandal Parishad would be convened on 08.09.2008, to take up the motion of no conﬁdence moved against the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice in Form-II was issued by certain Members, contrary to the Rules and that the time frame mentioned under the relevant Rules is not maintained between the date of service of Form-V and the date of meeting. He places reliance upon a Judgment of this Court in Kamisetty Narayana Murthy vs. Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Eluru[1]. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the notice in Form-II was in accordance with the relevant Rules and that the requirement to maintain 15 clear days is between the date of Form-V and the date of meeting and not between the date of service of notice and the date of meeting. He places reliance upon a Judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in K.Sujatha vs. Govt. of A.P.[2]. The only controversy in this writ petition is about the maintenance of time gap, as provided for under the Rules. The Rules mandate that notice of 15 days shall be issued before convening the meeting for taking up the motion of no conﬁdence. The question as to whether the 15 days time must be between the date of notice and the date of meeting, or the date of service of notice and the date of meeting was dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court in K.Sujatha’s (2 supra). It was held that what becomes relevant is the date of notice and not the date of service of notice. It is no doubt true that the learned Single Judge of this Court took a diﬀerent view in Kamisetty Narayana Murthy’s case (2 supra). The fact, however, remains that the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in K.Sujatha’s case (2 supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, when the Judgment in Ramisetty Narayana Murthy’s case (2 supra) was rendered. In the instant case, if the time is calculated between the date of notice and the date of meeting, it emerges that the Rule is satisﬁed. The mere fact that the petitioner is served with notice, at a later point of time, does not make any difference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 08.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19503 of 2008 Date: 08.09.2008 JSU [1] 2006(4) ALT 222 [2] 2004 (3) ALD 682 (F.B.)