THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1893 of 2011 Dated 02nd February, 2011 Between: Smt.Langamalla Chandrakala …Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri J.Rajeshwar Counsel for respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 13.01.2011, issued in Form-V, by respondent No.2. The petitioner is the President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Mahamuttur Mandal, Karimnagar District. On a motion of no confidence submitted in Form-II by the required number of Members of the Mandal Praja Parishad, respondent No.2 issued the impugned notice fixing 05.02.2011 at 11.00 am as the date of the meeting for discussing the no confidence motion. Assailing this notice, the present writ petition is filed. At the hearing, Sri J.Rajeshwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the only contention viz., that in paragraph-2 of the impugned notice, respondent No.2 has mentioned Section “245 45” of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), which does not exist and that therefore, the notice is unenforceable. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that this plea of the petitioner is raised in despair. Under Section 245(1) of the Act, a motion of no confidence can be moved inter alia against the President of the Mandal Praja Parishad by a written notice as prescribed under the Rules by not less than one-half of the total number of Members of the Parishad. Rule 3 of the Rules relating to motion of no confidence provided that the Officer concerned, who received the motion, shall issue notice in Form-V fixing the date and time for discussing the no confidence motion. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not empowered to issue notice in Form-V. As noted above, the only contention of the petitioner is that the impugned notice referred to a non-existing provision. A perusal of this notice clearly shows that the figure ‘45’ has been typed after figure ‘245’. It also mentioned sub- section (1) after the figure ‘245’. On a close perusal of this notice, there cannot be any doubt that the figure ‘45’ is a typographical mistake crept in the notice. If the said figure is ignored, the notice is traceable to Section 245(1) of the Act, which is the apt and relevant provision for issuing the notice of this nature. The law is well settled that mere quoting of a wrong provision would not vitiate the proceedings, if the power is otherwise available under the statute to issue such proceedings (see Mohd.Shahbuddin v. State of Bihar[1]). No other contention has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition has no merit and the same is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.2321 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd February, 2011 VGB [1] (2010) 4 SCC 653