IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 26592 of 2008 Between: Teella Susila, W/o. T. Jagannadha Rao, Salur, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. 3 Suvvada Ramakrishna, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Kodama, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 4 T. Kannam Naidu, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Maripalli, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5 B. Alivelu, Husband's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Thonam, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 6 K. Ramulamma, Husband's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Kurmaraju Pet, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 7 Muvvala Sarmma, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Kothavalasa, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 8 Ch. Aruna Kumari, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Kurukutti, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 9 M. Somulu, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Annamraju Valasa, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 10 M. Lachaiah, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Karasu Valasa, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 11 K. Gopala Rao, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Borabamda, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 12 P. Prasad, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Mamidipalli, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 13 Ch. Govinda Rao, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Jogiram, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 14 D. Srinu, father's name and age not known, M.P.T.C. Ganjaibadra, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District in accepting the Notice Letter No. 1159/2008A, dated 24-11-2008 and issuing Form-V notice in letter No. 1159/2008A, dated 24-11-2008, as being contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 245 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with the Rules framed in GO Ms. No. 200, dated 28-4-1998, apart from being illegal, arbitrary and unreasonabel and consequently, to declare the entire procedure initiated by the respondents as void ab nitio and set aside the impugned notices dated 21-11-2008 and 24-11-2008, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLESRINIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: With the consent of Sri D.Prakash Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 14, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the second respondent in accepting the notice given by respondents 3 to 14 dated 21.11.2008, and issuing Form-V notice on 24.11.2008, as contrary to the procedure prescribed under section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short – ‘the Act’). In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 245 of the Act, the Rules for moving a motion of no-confidence against Upa- Sarpanch of Gram Panchyayat, or the President and Vice-President of Mandal Parishad or Vice-chairperson/Chairperson of Zilla Parishad were notified in G.O.Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998. Rule 2 thereunder requires the notice of the intention to make the motion to be made in Form-II, to be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Mandal Parishad together with a copy of the proposed motion, and to be delivered in person by any two of the members who signed such notice, to the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction. Rule 2 of the aforementioned Rules requires the proposed motion of no-confidence to be submitted along with Form-II. While several contentions are raised in the writ petition, the main contention is that the proposed motion of no-confidence has not been enclosed along with Form-II submitted by respondents 3 to 14 before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj was called upon to produce the record and, on its production, the records were made available for perusal of both Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 14. It is evident from the records that, instead of enclosing the proposed motion of no- confidence to the Form-II, respondents 3 to 14 have submitted two copies of Form-II to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Since failure to enclose the copy of the proposed motion along with Form-II is in violation of Rule 2 of the Rules aforementioned, all subsequent proceedings including issuance of Form-V and the meeting to be held on 12.12.2008 for the purpose of moving a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, (the President of the Mandal Parishad), must be held to be illegal. The entire proceedings, commencing from submission of Form-II by respondents 3 to 14 are quashed. Needless to state that the order passed by this Court shall not preclude respondents 3 to 14 from submitting Form-II afresh and in complying with the Rules aforementioned for moving a no-confidence motion against the petitioner herein. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ___________ 11-12-2008 Note: Issue copy by 17-12-2008 B/o Cvrk/asp