THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1737 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as a President of the Mandal Parishad, Muttaram, Karimnagar District in the year 2006. Six out of nine Members of the Mandal Parishad submitted a requisition in Form-II prescribed under the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, the third respondent herein, with a request to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad to take up the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The third respondent acted upon the same and issued notice, dated 09.01.2009, in Form-V, proposing to conduct the meeting on 27.01.2009. The petitioner challenges the said notice and the proceedings initiated by the third respondent, on several grounds. It is urged that the persons, who issued requisition in Form-II, did not enclose a copy of the proposed resolution. The second ground urged by the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an ordinance, prohibiting tabling of motion of no confidence against Presidents and Vice Presidents of the Mandal Parishads for a period of four years from the date of election. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. So far as the second ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, except making a reference to the decision of the Cabinet, nothing is placed before this Court. Neither a copy of ordinance nor any other form or amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the Rules is made available to the Court. Coming to the first ground, even according to the petitioner, the signatories of Form-II have enclosed another letter expressing their intention to table a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. From a perusal of the said letter, it is evident that the signatories proposed a motion of no confidence against the petitioner by alleging that she failed to undertake developmental activities in the Mandal and on account of certain other reasons, they lost confidence in her. The mere fact that the signatories have put their signatures and made a mention that they are enclosing the copy of the proposed resolution to Form-II hardly makes any difference. Once it is clear that Form-II was accompanied by a proposed resolution, Rule 3 stands complied with. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.02.2009 kdl