IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20515 of 2008 Between: 1 Dhubhaka Narayana, S/o.Narsaiah Gidda R/o.Gidda Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2 Nareddy Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o.Pedda Narsa Reddy R/o.Markal Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 3 Bolipelli Ganga Reddy, S/o.Mallaiah R/o.Adloor Yellareddy-1 Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 4 Maneti Srinivas, S/o.Janardhan R/o.Sadasiva Nagar-1 Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 5 Sunkari Bhoomaiah, S/o.Ramaiah R/o.Dharma Rao Pet Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 6 Padigele Rajeshwar Rao, S/o.Hanmanth Rao R/o.Bhoompalli Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 7 J.Shankar Rao, S/o.Nagavendhar Rao R/o.Padmaji Wadi Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 8 Mohd. Pakroddin, S/o.Mohd. Hussain R/o.Kalvaral Village, Sadasiva Nagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1The REvenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy Nizamabad District 2Pedda Boina Raju S/o.Pochaiah Sadasiva Nagar Mandal Sadasivanagar Nizamabad District 3Smt.Nareddy Suwarna W/o.Srinivas Reddy Posanipet village Sadasivanagar Mandal Nizamabad District 4Smt.Manjula Laxmi W/o.Nara Goud Sadasiva Nagar village & Mandal Nizamabad District 5Smt.Gangadhari Bhairamma W/o.Narasaiah Wuppalwai village Sadasivanagar Mandal Nizamabad District 6Smt.Sshekeli Thriveni w/o.Ravinder V.Yellareddy village-2 Sadasivanagar Mandal Nizamabad District 7Sri Ragula Rama Goud S/o.Laxma Goud Kupriyal village Sadasivanagar Mandal Nizamabad District 8Smt.Sidham Bhalrajawwa W/o.Bhalaiah Isannapally village Sadasivanagar Mandal Nizamabad District 9Sri Kanchari Raju S/o.Ramulu Ramareddy -II village Sadasivanagar Mandal Nizamabad 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No./1784/2008 dated 12.9.2008 of the respondent No.1 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to S.245 of the AP Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners are the Members of Sadasivanagar Mandal Parishad, Nizamabad District. The second respondent is President and respondents 3 to 9 are also members. A requisition in Form-II of the Rules prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998, is said to have been delivered to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Kamareddy, the ﬁrst respondent herein, by nine members including petitioners 1 and 2. While the second petitioner submitted a representation on 09.09.2008 disowning his signature in Form-II, the ﬁrst petitioner submitted such representation on 13.09.2008. The ﬁrst respondent issued a notice, dated 12.09.2008, to all the Members and the President notifying the date of meeting as 01.10.2008, to take up the motion of no conﬁdence against the second respondent. The petitioners contend that the second respondent had engineered the entire exercise, only with an oblique motive to ensure that a fake motion is taken up and on defeat thereof, he would continue in the Oﬃce for the rest of the term. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was obligatory on the part of the ﬁrst respondent to verify the allegations made by petitioners 1 and 2 before issuing notice to convene the meeting. He also raised an objection as to the form of notice chosen by the ﬁrst respondent. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the petitioners in the context of signatures in Form-II cannot be the subject matter of an enquiry at this stage. He contends that the petitioners can put forward the same during the course of meeting itself. The Notice in Form-II contains signatures of nine members. The total membership of the Mandal Parishad is said to be sixteen. Even assuming that there is any truth in the allegations of petitioners 1 and 2 that their signatures have been forged, this Court cannot stall the proceedings. If the petitioners are able to prove either during the course of proposed meeting or thereafter, that their signatures have been forged in Form-II, the necessary action can certainly be entailed as provided in law. In fact, motion of no conﬁdence can totally be ignored if the petitioners are able to prove their contention. So far as the form of notice is concerned, it is, no doubt, true that the ﬁrst respondent issued notice in form-IV instead of Form-V. Except that the number of form is defective, the text and other details accord with the prescribed form. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise their objections as to the genuinity of their signatures in Form-II in the meeting, that is proposed to be held on 01.10.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.09.2008. kdl