THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 19441 & 20116 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are ﬁled, challenging the action of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vikarabad, in proposing to convene a meeting of Pudur Mandal Parishad on 16.9.2008, to take up a motion of No- conﬁdence, against the President of the Mandal Parishad, by name Bhagwan Das. Petitioner in W.P.No.19441 of 2008 is the Vice-President and the petitioner in W.P.No.20116 of 2008 is a member (for short “the 2nd petitioner”). The facts pleaded in both the writ petitions are one and the same. It is stated that a notice, expressing want of conﬁdence signed by six members, was delivered to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, on 26.8.2008, and though the 2nd petitioner did not put her signature on the Requisition Form, her signature was forged in it. The 2nd petitioner is said to have submitted a complaint/ representation on 4.9.2008 to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, stating inter alia that her signature was forged. Both the petitioners pleaded that the proposed No- conﬁdence motion is nothing but the handwork of the President of the Mandal Parishad, to get a semblance of motion moved against him, so that he is galvanized for the rest of the term. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, learned Standing Counsel for Mandal Parishad, and learned counsel for the President of the Mandal Parishad. The grievance of the petitioners is as to the genuinety of the signature of the 2nd petitioner on the Requisition Form. Even assuming that there is any truth in the said complaint, this court ﬁnds it diﬃcult to interdict the proceedings, that commenced with the issuance of notice in Form-V. Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act provides for the tabling of motions of No-conﬁdence, against certain elected representatives. The further procedure prescribed in the rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.4.1998. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer received a requisition signed by 6 members of the Mandal Parishad. The requisition was accompanied by a proposed resolution. After satisfying that the requisition accords with the prescribed procedure, he issued notice in Form-V. Even assuming that there is any truth in the allegation of the 2nd petitioner, as to the genuinety of her signature in the Requisition Form, this court ﬁnds it diﬃcult to examine the same. She can certainly make this as an issue in the motion of No-confidence. Even otherwise, in case, the 2nd petitioner proves in any properly constituted proceedings that her signature was forged, then it can certainly tell upon the validity of the motion, in case, the number has fallen short of required signatories. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners, to pursue their remedy to prove the plea of forgery. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 15th September 2008 PAN