THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18612 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad, in the year 2006. Some of the members of the Mandal Parishad delivered a notice, dated 11.8.2008 to the 1st respondent, expressing their intention to move a motion of No-conﬁdence, against the petitioner. The latter, in turn, issued notice in Form-V on 12.8.2008. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. He contends that the 1st respondent did not enclose the notice in Form-II to the notice in Form-V, and the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent does not accord with the one, prescribed under the Rules, published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.4.1998. The 1st respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that notice in Form-II signed by six of the members, was delivered to him by two of the signatories on 11.8.2008, and on being satisﬁed about the genuinety of the signatures thereon, he issued notice in Form-V. It is also stated that it is only the proposed resolution, that had enclosed to Form-V, and not the notice in Form- II. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, provides for tabling of motions of No-conﬁdence, against the President of a Mandal Parishad. Detailed procedure is prescribed for under the Rules. A close examination of the procedure prescribed under the Rules discloses that while delivering notice in Form-II, the signatories have to enclose a copy of the proposed motion. The 1st respondent, in turn, has to satisfy himself about the genuinety of the signatures thereon. On being satisﬁed about the genuinety thereof, he has to issue notice in Form-V to all the members, ﬁxing the date of meeting, which shall be 15 days after the date of notice. Form-V mandates that a copy of the proposed motion of No-conﬁdence shall be enclosed to it. There is nothing in Form-V, or the Rules, to insist that the notice in Form- II must be enclosed to it. In the instant case, the 1st respondent has enclosed the text of the proposed motion of No-conﬁdence, to Form-V. Even assuming that the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of Form-II, it does not constitute any irregularity, or non-compliance with the rules. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the petitioner, to raise any objection, be it procedural or otherwise, at the meeting. Since the proposed meeting could not take place, due to stay granted by this court, the 1st respondent shall issue fresh notice, ﬁxing fresh date of meeting for taking up the motion of No- conﬁdence, in accordance with the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ 19th September 2008 PAN