IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22183 of 2008 Between: 1 Palagani Tata Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Yerrabalem-II, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 2 Kottepogu Ananda Rao, S/o. Chinna Ramulu, R/o. Kuragallu Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur. 2 The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in proceeding ahead with the meeting of the members of Mandal Parishat, Mangalari, Guntur District scheduled to be held on 8-10-2008 pursuant to the Form V Notice issued by the 1st respondent even though one member has been kidnapped as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent to postpone the meeting till the wife of 2nd petitioner is traced and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following Order: The ﬁrst petitioner and the wife of the second petitioner are the members of the Mandal Parishad, Mangalagiri. Those two and some others have signed a notice in Form-II, prescribed under the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-2008, with a request to convene the meeting of the Mandal Parishad to take up the motion of no conﬁdence against the President. Acting on the same, the ﬁrst respondent issued notice dated 22-09- 2008 in Form-V ﬁxing 08-10-2008 as the date for convening the meeting of the Mandal Parishad. This writ petition is ﬁled alleging that the wife of the second petitioner has been kidnapped by the opposite camp and attempts were also made to prevent the other members from participating in the meeting. With these and other allied allegations, the petitioners seek a direction that the ﬁrst respondent be restrained from holding the meeting scheduled to be held on 08-10-2008. The petitioners contend that the very purpose of giving requisition for moving a motion of no conﬁdence is defeated on account of the illegal acts resorted to by the opposite camp. A detailed counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the contesting respondents. It is stated that the allegation that the wife of the second petitioner is kidnapped is nothing but a fabricated version only with a view to avoid the meeting. The other grounds are also urged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat and Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 12. Notice in Form-II was signed by the ﬁrst petitioner and the wife of the second petitioner along with some others. The ﬁrst respondent found the same to be in order and issued notice in Form-V proposing to convene the meeting on 08-10-2008 to take up the motion of no conﬁdence against the President. The only allegation made by the petitioners is that the wife of the second petitioner was kidnapped. This allegation is strongly refuted by respondents 3 to 12. It is stated that the said member is attending all the family functions and the allegation as to kidnap is invented only to avoid the meeting. Be that as it may, it is not the duty of the ﬁrst respondent to ensure the presence of every member of the Mandal Parishad. The complaint is said to have already been ﬁled with the second respondent. Depending on the progress in the case, steps would certainly be taken to ensure that the person said to have been kidnapped is released. At any rate, the mere inability of a member to attend a meeting cannot be a factor to postpone or cancel the meeting, particularly, when the steps under the relevant rules are time bound. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The ﬁrst respondent is directed to issue fresh notice to convene the meeting. The second respondent shall look into the allegation made by the petitioners as to the alleged kidnap of the wife of the second petitioner. No order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23-10-2008 Note:Furnish copy by today bo Usd To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur. 2 The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3 Two CCs to GP for Gram Panchayat, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.