THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26460 of 2010 Dated 15th February, 2011 Between: M.Deva Raja Reddy …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 5 : Smt.Ch.Vedavani The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside resolution, dated 16.08.2010, and G.O.Ms.No.358, dated 20.10.2010, issued by respondent No.1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. The petitioner was elected as Member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, Vedurukuppam and subsequently as President of Mandal Praja Parishad in the year 2006. On a requisition made by as many as 10 out of 13 members of Mandal Praja Parishad on 23.07.2010, respondent No.4 has served notice, dated 30.07.2010, on the petitioner fixing 16.08.2010 at 11.00 am for discussing the motion of no confidence against him under Section 245(1) of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). The admitted fact is that in pursuance of the said notice, a meeting was held, which was attended to by 11 out of 13 Members of Mandal Praja Parishad and all of them have supported the motion of no confidence. On the report submitted by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned G.O., removing the petitioner from the office of the President of Vedurukuppam Mandal Praja Parishad. At the hearing, Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that while issuing the notice, respondent No.4 has not followed the procedure and that while passing the resolution, the Mandal Praja Parishad has also committed procedural illegalities. The learned counsel, however, is unable to point out as to which part of the prescribed procedure has been violated either by respondent No.4 or the Mandal Praja Parishad. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, he has categorically stated that 10 out of 13 members have given requisition for moving no confidence motion against the petitioner, that in pursuance thereof, a notice was issued in form-V to the petitioner and all other Members in terms of the Rules prescribed under the Act and that in the meeting held on 16.08.2010, 11 out of 13 members, who attended the meeting, expressed their support to the no confidence motion and accordingly the motion was passed. It is further stated that respondent No.1 has issued the impugned G.O., removing the petitioner from the office of the President of the Mandal Praja Parishad. In the absence of any specific plea supported by material in support thereof that the motion of no confidence has not been carried out in accordance with law, the impugned orders cannot be interfered with by this Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33786 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th February, 2011 VGB