THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18975 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is a member of the Mandal Parishad, Kotagiri Mandal, Nizamabad District. He challenges the notice, dated 19.8.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, in Form-V of the Rules published under G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, dated 24.4.1998. He complains that notice of No-conﬁdence Motion was issued, in contravention of the prescribed procedure, and that stipulated time gap is not maintained, between the date of notice and date of proposed meeting. The Mandal Parishad consists of 15 members, and in the elections held in 2006, 9 members were elected from the Telugu Desham Party and 6 from the Indian National Congress. The President belongs to Telugu Desham Party. As many as 10 members of the Mandal Parishad delivered notice, in Form-II on 18.8.2008, to the 2nd respondent, with a request to convene a meeting, to take up the motion of No-conﬁdence against the President. After veriﬁcation of the various signatures from the Mandal Prishad Development Oﬃcer, the 2 nd respondent issued notice, in Form-V on 19.8.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is internal evidence to show that the notice was issued on 20.8.2008 and there is no clear gap of 15 days, between the date of notice and the date, on which the meeting is proposed to be convened, i.e. on 4.9.2008. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has produced the record and submits that, even if the date of notice and the date, on which the meeting is to be convened, is excluded, there is a clear gap of 15 days. Though it is urged that the notice in form-V was prepared on 20.8.2008, the petitioner is not able to substantiate the same. A perusal of the record discloses that the notice in Form- 2 was submitted on 18.8.2008, the veriﬁcation of the signatures was undertaken on 19.8.2008, and on the same day, the 2nd respondent issued notice in Form-5. The meeting is scheduled to take place on 4.9.2008. There exists clear gap of 15 days, between these two dates. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have been committed, in issuing the notice. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 2nd September 2008 PAN