THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21023 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as a Member of Mandal Praja Parishad of Tandur Mandal, Adilabad District, on 04- 07-2006. Thereafter, she was elected as the President of the Mandal, on 11-09-2006. Respondents 2 to 9 herein, Members of the Mandal Parishad, have delivered notice in Form-II, to the Sub-Collector, Adilabad, the 1st respondent, with a request to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad, to take up the Motion of No-conﬁdence against the petitioner. After verifying the same, the 1st respondent issued notice dated 08-09-2008, in Form-V, proposing to convene a meeting of Mandal Parishad, on 25-09-2008, to consider the Motion of No-confidence. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not maintain 15 clear days gap, between the date of service of notice, in Form-V, and the date of meeting. It is represented that a notice was served upon the petitioner, and several members on 10-09-2008, and afterwards, and thereby, the 15 clear days of gap is not maintained. It is true that Rule 3 of the Rules, issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-1998, stipulates that, 15 days gap shall be maintained between the date of notice, and date of the proposed meeting. A Full Bench of this Court in K. Sujatha v. Government of A.P.,[1] held that, the 15 days time is to be counted from the date of notice, and not from the date of service of the notice. In the instant case, the notice in Form-V is, dated 08-09-2008, and if the time is counted from that date, there exists clear 15 days, up to the date of meeting. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned notice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY , J. Dt.24-09-2008. KO [1] 2004 (3) ALT 682 (F.B)