THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21494 of 2008 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the President and the 2nd petitioner is the Vice-President of Mandal Parishad, Enkur, of Khamma district. They feel aggrieved by the separate notices in Form-V, of the Rules, published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-1998 (for short ‘the Rules’), issued by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, proposing to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad, on 03-10-2008, to take up the Motion of No-conﬁdence against both of them. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent committed illegality in issuing the notices, to convene the meetings, for Motion of No-conﬁdence against both the petitioners, on the same day. It is also their case that, the requisition was not submitted by majority of the members, in the prescribed form, and that there are several irregularities, in it. Heard Sri Kowturu Vinayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, and Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 9. The 1st objection raised by the petitioners is, about the legality of notices, issued by the majority of members, requesting the 2nd respondent to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad, to take up the Motion of No-conﬁdence. Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules are relevant, in this regards. Rule 2 mandates that a notice, expressing the Motion of No-conﬁdence must be served on the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, containing not less than half of the members. The notice contains the signatures of more than half of the members of the Mandal Parishad. Further, a copy of the proposed Motion of No- confidence is enclosed. The other important requirement is that, two such signatories shall hand over the requisition to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, in person. Apart from the two signatories, the record discloses that, all the signatories have subscribed their signatures, in the presence of the 2nd respondent, himself. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have crept in to the notice issued in Form-II, though the number, namely, Form 2, is not evident from the requisition. The notice in Form-V is issued by the 2 nd respondent, duly maintaining the time gap, as stipulated under Rule 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Motion of No-conﬁdence, against the President and Vice-President, cannot be taken up, on the one and the same day. Neither Section 245 of the A.P Panchayat Raj Act, nor, Rule 3 of the Rules, prohibit the motion, for the same purpose, being convened on the same day. The 2 nd respondent has maintained the gap of four hours between the two meetings. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the issuance of notice in Form-V. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioners to raise all their objections, during the course of meetings, to the extent it is permissible under Law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt:29-09-2008. KO