IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2880 of 2009 Between: Lavu Naga Vara Prasad S/o.Venkateswara Rao, D.C.No.27, Reddygudem, R/o.D.No.19-111 Tummalavari street-1,Nuzivid, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Department of Irrigation & CAD., rep.by its Chief Engineer Jalasoudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Department of Irrigation & CAD., Tekulapalli, Khammam,Khammam District. 3 The Eecutive Engineer, (NSC and O&M) Department of Irrigation &CAD., Nuzivid Division, Nuzivid, Krishna District. 4 The Deputy Eecutive Engineer, (NSC and O&M) Department of Irrigation & CAD., Nuzivid, Krishna 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 an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing letter dated 9.2.2009 and conducting no confidence motion against the petitioner on 11.2.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, and non application of mind besides violating of Article 14&21 of Constitution of India and also violative of S.10 of the AP Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act,1997, and consequently quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2880 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as a member of Water Users’ Association Distribution Committee of Reddygudem (“the Committee” for brevity), Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District, on 01.01.2008. Thereafter, he became the Chairman of the Committee on 01.02.2008. The Committee comprises of five {5} members. Out of them, four {4} have submitted a representation dated 09.02.2009 to the Deputy Executive Engineer, the fourth respondent herein, with a prayer to conduct meeting of the Committee to express lack of confidence in the petitioner. The fourth respondent issued notice dated 09.02.2009 proposing to convene a meeting on 11.02.2009. The petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent are untenable and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Farmers’ Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 1997 (“the Act” for brevity) and the Rules made there under. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation. Section 10 of the Act provides for recall of elected members, Chairman or Vice Chairman. Requisition for this purpose is to be given by not less than 1/3rd of the total members. Rules framed under the Act mandate that a meeting for taking up the motion must be convened within fourteen {14} days from the date of receipt of requisition. The petitioner is not able to point out violation of provisions of the Act or Rules. Admittedly, four {4} out of five {5} members of the Committee have given requisition and the motion is said to have been carried out. This Court does not find serious, factual or legal infirmity in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 16th February 2009 RRB