IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2329 of 2009 Between: Vallamreddy Sri Mahalakshmi, W/o. Sudhakar Reddy, R/o. Vaddamanu Village, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Guntur District at Guntur. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 5 Mallela Harindernath Chowdhary, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy, Thullur, Guntur 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 Writ or direction particularly in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the proposed motion of no confidence scheduled to be held on 11-2-20098 by the 4th respondent, as illegal, void, arbitrary and against to the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No. 200 (Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department), dated 28-4-1998. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Eight members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency of Vaddamanu, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District, delivered a notice, dated 12.01.2009 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the fourth respondent, with a request to convene a meeting of Mandal Parishad to take up the motion of no confidence against its President, the fifth respondent herein, in Form-II prescribed under the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 28.04.1998. The petitioner was shown as one of the signatories. Acting on the said notice, the fourth respondent issued notice in Form-V proposing to convene the meeting on 11.02.2009. The petitioner challenges the action of the fourth respondent, on several grounds. It is pleaded that the signature of the petitioner was forged in Form- II and that she has not been served with notice in the prescribed manner. Heard Sri V.R.Avula, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Though the petitioner asserts that she did not sign in Form-II, the record does not disclose that she has brought this fact to the notice of the fourth respondent. Further, the person, who is facing no confidence motion i.e., the fifth respondent, did not feel any grievance. It is not as if the petitioner is put to any loss. In case she did not sign the requisition, she can as well abstain from the meeting. So far as the service of notice is concerned, whatever be the stringency with which the relevant provision is to be complied with, as regards those who are facing the motion of no confidence or those who did not figure as signatories; a member, who has signed the requisition in Form-II, cannot complain of absence of notice, particularly when the date of meeting is known to him or her. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.02.2009. GJ