THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27245 of 2010 Date: 02.11.2010 Between: Torlakonda Mangamma ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the President of Mandal Praja Parishat, Rompicharla, Guntur District, for a Mandamus to set aside the notice dated 28.10.2010 issued in Form V for moving a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. I have heard Sri K. Ramanuja Chary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents. The petitioner is the President of Rompicharla Mandal Praja Parishat. Before she completed four years of office, a motion of ‘No Confidence’ was moved against her on 12.07.2010. Questioning the said ‘No Confidence Motion’, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17903 of 2010. This Court, on the concession made by the learned Special Government Pleader that as the motion was moved before the expiry of four years tenure in office by the petitioner, the same is not enforceable, disposed of the writ petition on 08.10.2010 with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh steps for moving ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the said writ petition, the motion impugned in the present writ petition has been moved against the petitioner. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that under second proviso to Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), no notice of motion shall be made against the same person more than once during his term of office and that therefore, the impugned motion is barred under the said provision. In my opinion, this submission is wholly without any merit. In the previous writ petition noted above, this Court has specifically observed that the previous motion was not enforceable. Accordingly, for the said reason, the previous writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh steps for moving ‘No Confidence Motion’. As the previous motion is not enforceable, it is axiomatic that the same cannot be deemed to have been moved at all in law. As such, the impugned motion requires to be treated as a motion moved for the first time. In this view of the matter, the bar under second proviso to Section 245 of the Act is not attracted. Another reason for this Court’s disinclination to entertain the writ petition is that the petitioner, having taken advantage of getting the previous motion invalidated and agreed for initiation of steps for fresh motion by the respondents in the previous writ petition, is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court by taking contra stand. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34797 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd November, 2010 GHN