THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20405 of 2008 O R D E R: The ﬁrst petitioner is the President and petitioners 2 to 4 are the members of Sadasiva Peta Mandal Parishad, Medak District. Respondents 2 to 10 are said to have submitted a requisition in form-II to the ﬁrst respondent with a request to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad to take up the motion of ‘No Conﬁdence’ against the ﬁrst petitioner. Acting on the same, the ﬁrst respondent issued notice in Form-IV proposing to convene the meeting on 22-09-2008. The petitioners challenged the same. Sri A Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the notice does not contain any date and it was issued in a wrong form. He contends that there is a flagrant violation in the whole exercise. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri S.Indrasena Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4, on the other hand, submits that the requisition is delivered in accordance with the rules and the impugned notice though issued in form-IV accords with form-V, they also plead that there is clear gap of 15 days from the date of notice and the proposed meeting. Respondents 2 to10 submitted a requisition in form- II to the ﬁrst respondent with a prayer to convene a meeting to take up motion of ‘No Conﬁdence’ against the first petitioner. This Court cannot examine the genuinity or otherwise of the signatures thereon. The ﬁrst respondent, however, issued a notice in form-IV whereas what is prescribed in the rules is form-V. Hereagain a margin can be given to the respondents if all goes on by the content. However, a serious irregularity is found in the notice. Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules mandates that there shall be a clear gap of 15 days from the date of notice and the proposed meeting. The notice issued by the ﬁrst respondent does not contain any date. Therefore, it becomes diﬃcult for anyone to assess the time stipulated under Rule 3. At any rate, it is non- compliance with Rule 3. Learned Government Pleader has made available the original record. In the oﬃcial copy of the form, not only there is diﬀerence in signatures but also the date 06-09- is inserted subsequently. When valuable rights of elected representatives are involved, the authorities cannot be permitted to handle the matter in such a causal manner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. However, it is left open to the ﬁrst respondent to take further steps, on the basis of form-II notice presented to him, in accordance with law. No costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19-09-2008 Note:Furnish copy by tomorrow Bo usd