THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.A.NO.4 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: ( Per NRR,J) Heard Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for the respondent. This writ appeal is directed against an order passed in WVMP No.4407 of 2010. The said vacate application has been moved by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet, Warangal District seeking the interim order granted earlier on 25-08-2010 to be vacated. The appellants are the writ petitioners. They have called in question the validity of the notice dated 9-8-2010 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsampet Division convening the meeting of the Mandal Parishad for considering the ‘No Confidence Motion’ delivered to them on 31.7.2010. Though the notice of No Confidence has been delivered on 31.7.2010, the Revenue Divisional Officer has drawn the notice for convening the meeting of the Mandal Parishad for consideration of the ‘No Confidence Motion’ on 9-8-2010. The meeting is scheduled to 26-08-2010 at 11-00 a.m. Though in between these two dates, there is a clear 15 days time, but nonetheless, the fact remains that the 1st appellant herein has received the notice on 12-08-2010, by way of affixture, while the 2nd appellant has been delivered notice on 16-08-2010. If the period of notice of 15 days is so reckoned from the date of service of notice to them, it fell short by 15 days. On that ground, the writ petitioners have challenged the validity of the notice. It was also further pointed out that since the ratio in the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this court in K.Sujatha vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1] has been doubted, the matter is now under consideration again. Rule 3 of the Rules relates to motion of no confidence, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “He shall give to every member of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, the notice of not less than 15 clear days excluding the date of notice and the date of the proposed meeting of such meeting in Form IV, or in Form V or in Form VI annexed to these rules either in Engligh or in Telugu or in Urdu language, whichever is applicable.”. The plain meaning that can be ascribed to this portion of Rule 3 to us indicates that the Revenue Divisional Officer was required to give a notice to every member of the Mandal Parishad of the proposed meeting of not less than 15 clear days period. Therefore, if the notice convening the meeting has been delivered without complying with this requirement of the Rule, it will be difficult to subscribe to the view that the meeting has been validly convened. What consequences can flow from a meeting, which is not validly convened, are not very difficult to be visualized. If the procedure requiring the convening of the meeting has not been directly adhered to and followed, the meeting itself can be described to have not been validly convened and consequently, no consequences can flow there from. Therefore, we find the balance of convenience in favour of the appellants and not in favour of allowing the consequences of a meeting, which are not validly convened to flow. Hence, the order passed in WVMP No.4407 of 2010 is set aside and the earlier order passed on 25-08-2010 in W.P.M.P.No. 26574 of 2010 is restored and we direct Writ Petition No. 20895 of 2010 to be listed for final hearing along with WP No.23402 of 2008 before the Full Bench. With this, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J _________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Rkk/Ksld Dated: 05-01-2011 [1] 2004(3) ALD 1 (FB)