IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20722 of 2008 Between: P.Lingamma, W/o. P.Vishnu Goud, R/o. 1-9-355, Madavaswamy Nagar, Varidela village, Kollapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 20 others. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the3rd respondent in issuing notice vide E/1676/08, dated 6-9-2008 for conducting no conﬁdence motion is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Rule 2,3 and 7 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to conduct the no-conﬁdence motion against the petitioner on 23-9-2008. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.G.VENKAT SWAMY GOUD Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20722 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Upa Sarpanch of Kollapur Gram Panchayat in the year 2006. The Gram Panchayat comprises of Sarpanch and 18 members. 16 members of the Gram Panchayat have submitted requisition, dated 25.08.2008, to the 4th respondent-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nagar Kurnool, with a prayer to convene a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, to discuss the motion of no conﬁdence against the petitioner. The 4th respondent, in turn, issued a notice, dated 06.09.2008, proposing to conduct a meeting on 23.09.2008. The petitioner challenges the same. 2. Sri G.Venkatswamy Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that one of the main requirements is that a notice must be served on the Sarpanch, whereas the impugned notice does not make any mention of such service. He contends that the proceedings initiated through the impugned notice cannot go on. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the notice was served on the Sarpanch, and the petitioner cannot make any grievance out of the proposed steps. 4. The rules published through G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998, prescribe the procedure for convening the meeting, to take up motion of no conﬁdence, and supplement Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. Out of 19 members of the Grama Panchayat, 16 have submitted a requisition, to convene a meeting, to take up the motion of no conﬁdence against the petitioner. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that a notice in Form No.4 is not served upon the Sarpanch. Even if it is true, it is the Sarpanch who can make a grievance about it, but not the petitioner. However, the impugned notice shows that a copy was marked to the Sarpanch. This Court does not ﬁnd any basis to grant any relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 22.09.2008 v v