THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1215 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency Members of Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The petitioners and three others issued a notice, dated 21-11-2008 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram, the 2nd respondent herein, with a request to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad, to consider the ‘Motion of No-Confidence’ against the President, the 3rd respondent herein. Acting on the same, the 2nd respondent initiated steps under Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short ‘the Act’), 1994, and the Rules made thereunder, published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-1998. The 2nd respondent issued Notice in Form-V, proposing to convene the meeting on 12-12-2008, to consider the ‘Motion of No-Confidence’ against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent filed W.P.No.26592 of 2008, challenging the notice issued in Form-V, dated 24-11-2008, on the ground that the relevant procedure was not followed. The writ petition was allowed, and it was left open to the petitioners, and others to deliver the notice in Form-II, afresh. The petitioners delivered a fresh notice in Form-II, dated 20-12-2008. The 2nd respondent issued a consequential notice in Form-V, proposing to convene a meeting on 08-01-2009. Since that happened to be a holiday, it was postponed, and ultimately, a fresh notice was issued, proposing to convene the meeting on 29-01-2009. The petitioners submit that the 3rd respondent has kidnapped substantial number of members, with a view to defeat the ‘Motion of No-Confidence’ and though a complaint was submitted to the Police, no action has been taken thereon. The petitioners seek a direction from this Court, that the meeting, to take up Motion of No- Confidence be postponed from 29-01-2009, till the alleged kidnapped persons are released. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. It is at the instance of the petitioners, that the steps were initiated under Section 245 of the Act, and the relevant Rules. The initial attempt to convene the meeting was resisted by the 3rd respondent, by filing a writ petition. On a technical ground, the writ petition was allowed, and it was left open to the petitioners to issue notice in Form-II, afresh. Accordingly, they submitted the same, for the second time. Though the meeting was proposed to be convened on 08-01-2009, it could not take place, since that happened to be a public holiday. A fresh notice in Form-V had to be issued, and the date for the meeting is fixed on 29-01-2009. The allegation made by the petitioners, hardly constitutes the basis for postponing the meeting. It is rather surprising that the petitioners, who initiated the steps, are insisting that the meeting be postponed. The allegation made by the petitioners is, as vague as it could be. This Court is not inclined to accede to the request of the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt. 28-01-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO