IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20790 of 2008 Between: P.Naga. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, (PR), Adilabad, Adilabad District. 3 B.Rajanna, Mandal Parishad, Tanoor Mandal, Adilabad District. 4 Malvanthkar Babu Rao, Elvi, Tanoor Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to convene a meeting to Tanoor Mandal Parishad, Adilabad District, for moving motion of no conﬁdence, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Procedure contemplated under the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-1998 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently to direct the respondents not to convene meeting of Mandal Praja Parishad of Tanoor, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.H.SATISH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Petitioner is a member of the Mandal Parishad, Tanuru mandal, Adilabad District. He challenges the steps said to have been initiated by the respondents 3 and 4 before the 1st respondent to move a motion of no conﬁdence against the President of the Mandal Parishad. 2. Petitioner states that one of the members by name Latchanna was kidnapped by other members and the son of the kidnapped member has submitted a complaint before the Station House Oﬃcer, Tanuru mandal. First Information Report is said to have been registered. Petitioner contends that the President of the Mandal Parishad is taking steps to get a motion of no conﬁdence against him so that in the event of its being defeated he would remain in the oﬃce for the rest of the period, without the threat of no confidence. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 4. Petitioner is neither a signatory to the alleged requisition for convening a meeting to take up motion of no conﬁdence, nor a complainant in F.I.R.No.68 of 2008. The curious part of the matter is that Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel, on instructions submits that the said Latchanna was not kidnapped at all. At any rate, the petitioner cannot be said to be either having locus standi or the grievance to complain about the steps said to have been taken by some of the members to submit an application in Form-II. 5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 23rd September, 2008 Tsy To 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Adilabad District. 3. 2 CCs to the GP for the Panchayat Raj. 4. 2 CD copies.