THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.18447 of 2008 ORDER: The 1st petitioner is the President and petitioners 2 to 4 are the members of Mandal Parishad, Nakrekal Mandal, Nalgonda District. They challenge the notice in Form-V, issued by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Nalgonda, the 1 st respondent herein, through which, he proposed to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad, on 26-08-2008, to consider the Motion of No-conﬁdence, against the 1st petitioner. They submit that the very initiation of proceedings was defective, inasmuch as notice in Form-II, prescribed under the Rules, published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-1998; was not properly delivered and handed over to the 1st respondent. They contend that No-conﬁdence does not contain any date, and thereby, it becomes diﬃcult to verify as to whether it accord a times frame, recorded in Rule 3 of the Rules. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, provides for removal of President, or Vice-President, of the Mandal Parishad, by moving a Motion of No-conﬁdence. The detailed procedure is prescribed under the Rules. Rule 2 mandates that a notice in Form-II can be signed by not less than one-half of the total number of members of the Mandal Parishad, and delivered by two such signatories, in person, to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer. On being satisﬁed about the genuinity of the signatures, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer shall issue notice in Form-V, for holding a meeting, to take up the motion, by maintaining clear 15 days of gap. The ﬁrst contention of the petitioners is about the method of delivery of notice, in Form-II. Their grievance is that the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer did not put his initial, at the bottom of the notice, and only an endorsement is made, at the top of it. Form -II makes a provision for signature of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, at the bottom. However, the mere fact that the endorsement, as to receipt of notice, is made at the top of it, does not, by itself, render the notice, in Form-II, illegal. The second objection is that, notice in Form-V does not contain the date. This Court has perused the record maintained by the 1st respondent. A notice was issued on 04-08-2008. Though the original contained the date, the Forms, that were served to various individuals, do not contain the date. It would have been better, had the date been mentioned, but absence of it, does not render the proceedings illegal. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The further steps, in pursuance of the notice in Form-V, shall be taken, from the stage at which, the proceedings were stalled. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt:25-09-2008. KO