IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23273 of 2008 Between: Smt. Donakonda Vanitha The Chair Person of Bhongir Municipal Council, Wife of Ramulu Bhongir,Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector Nalgonda .....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 issue a Writ of one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Notice in Proforma-II dt 04-01- 2008 issued by the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the procedure contemplated under Sub-Section (I) of Section 46 of the A.P Municipalities Act 1965 and the principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt. Donakonda Vanitha assailing the notice in Proforma-II dated 04.10.2008, issued by the District Collector, Nalgonda-the second respondent. The petitioner was elected as Chair Person of Bhongir Municipal Council and assumed charge as such in September 2005. 22 members of the Municipal Council had given notice of intention requesting the District Collector, Nalgonda to convene a meeting for making a motion expressing want of conﬁdence against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent has issued Proforma-II dated 04.10.2008 enclosing Proforma-I therewith. It is the grievance of the petitioner that Proforma notice served on him does not contain copy of the motion proposed to be moved against him. Therefore it is in violation of mandate in sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration received notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Proforma-II notice served on him does not contain enclosure of the proposed motion to be moved against her, and therefore, it is in breach of sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the A.P. Municipalities Act. The learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration submits that the notice in Proforma-II contains the enclosure of a copy of the motion of no conﬁdence. He also placed on record the entire ﬁle with respect to issuance of notice in Proforma-II to the petitioner. The ﬁle placed before me contains the copy of the Proforma-II sent to the petitioner. It is explicit from Proforma-II sent to the petitioner that copy of the proposed motion of no conﬁdence has been enclosed thereof. Indisputably Proforma-II has been served on the petitioner on 3.10.2008. In Proforma-II it is speciﬁcally stated that a copy of the motion proposed to be moved has been enclosed. The petitioner did not choose to complain before the District Collector that Proforma-II served on him does not contain the enclosure of the proposed motion. Such is the situation, the contention of the petitioner that Proforma-II served on him is not in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, has no substance. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 24th October, 2008 Js.