THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22038 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is Upa-Sarpanch of Peechara Gram Panchayat of Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal District. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Warangal, the 2 nd respondent herein, issued notice dated 17-09-2008, in Form-IV, under the Rules, issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-1998, proposing to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat, on 04-10-2008, to consider the motion of No-conﬁdence against the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the requisition given to the 2nd respondent, for convening the meeting of the Gram Panchayat itself was forged, and that the 2nd respondent did not verify the relevant records, before issuing the notice. It is also stated that the requisition was not delivered in the prescribed form. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Rules made thereunder, prescribes the procedure to be followed, in the context of convening the meetings of the Local Bodies, to consider the motion of No-conﬁdence against the Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, as the case may be. The 2nd respondent issued notice in Form-IV, dated 17-09-2008, on the strength of a requisition given by majority of the members, on 15-09-2008. The copy of the proposed resolution was enclosed to the impugned notice. From this, the petitioner gathered, that the requisition was not in a proper form. However, the record discloses that a requisition, as per Form-I, was signed by as many as 8 members, and it was submitted on 15-08-2008, to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner, in this regard, cannot be accepted. The second contention of the petitioner is, about the forgery of signatures of some of the members, and in particular, of one Mr.Koyyada Bodaiah. It is no doubt true that the said member used to put his thumb impression in the meetings of the Gram Panchayat. However, it appears that he has recently learnt to put his signature, in writing. The Minutes Book, ﬁled before this Court, discloses that, from 2006 onwards he started writing his name, as signature. It is also true that in the proposed resolution, the names of seven members are mentioned; whereas there are eight signatures. This, however, is a minor lapse, and it cannot eﬀect the legality of the impugned notice. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Since this Court granted stay on earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent shall resume the proceedings, by issuing fresh notice, to convene the meeting. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17-10-2008. KO