IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 503 of 2009 Between: Chandragiri Padma W/o. Durgaiah Khammampalle, Muttaram (Mantini) Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Raj Wing) Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, Karimnagar District. 4 The Station House Officer, Muttaram (Mantini) Police Station, Karimnagar 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing Form-5 proceedings under Section 245 Panchayat Raj Act, without conducting proper enquiry and without considering the representation dt. 11-1-2009 filed by the MPTCs is illegal void and opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to consider the representation dt. 11-1-2009 by giving protection to the Telugudesham MPTCs in participation of Fair Polling going to be conducted in the No Confidence Motion by the 3rd Respondent at the instance of the Congress Party MPTCs in accordance with Panchayat Raj Act and Rules there under and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for Respondents: GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Dev. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner was elected as President of Mandal Parishad, Muttaram Mandal, of Karimnagar District in the year 2006. The Mandal Parishad comprises of nine members. Six of them submitted a requisition on 03.01.2009 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, the third respondent herein, in Form No.II prescribed under the rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.04.1998, with a request to convene the meeting of the Mandal Parishad to take up motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Acting on the same, the third respondent, on 9.01.2009, issued notice in Form No.V proposing to convene the meeting of the Mandal Parishad on 27.01.2009 at 11.30 a.m. The petitioner challenges the same on several grounds. It is urged that the notice in Form No.V was not accompanied by a copy of the proposed motion of no confidence, and that the third respondent did not comply with the various provisions of law. When the writ petition came up for admission on 21.01.2009, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj took time, and today he has placed the entire record before this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules referred to above, prescribe the procedure to be followed in the matter of moving or taking up motion of no confidence against the President or Vice-President of the Mandhal Parishad, or Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The requisition in this regard is to be signed by not less than half of the total members and it should be presented in person by two of the signatories to the third respondent. A perusal of the record discloses that Form No.II, no doubt, was signed by six members, but there is nothing in it to disclose that it was presented in person by two of the signatures. Secondly and more importantly, Form No.II was not signed by the third respondent after it was received. The Form clearly mandates that it must be signed by the third respondent in proof of receiving the same from two of the signatories. Therefore, there are serious irregularities in the very initiation of proceedings. The Rules mandate that a copy of the proposed resolution must be enclosed to Form No.V. The one enclosed to Form No.V in the instant case is almost like Form No.II, and does not answer the description of proposed resolution. Be that as it may, since it is found that the very initiation of the steps against the petitioner are found to be illegal, the proposed motion of no confidence cannot be taken up against her. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed at the admission stage and the steps initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice in Form No.II are set aside. However, it is made clear that since the steps did not materialize into a meeting, it shall always open to the signatories of the notice in Form No.II to initiate steps afresh. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 23rd January, 2009 Js.