THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2060 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as President of Bhimini Mandal Parishad, Adilabad District in the year 2006. Notice in Form-II of the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Mandal-I) Department, dated 28.04.1998 was issued by some of the Members of the Mandal Parishad to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Asifabad, respondent herein. Acting on the same, the respondent issued notice, dated 24.01.2009, in Form-V, proposing to conduct the meeting on 11.02.2009. The petitioner challenges the same. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the respondent did not enclose the copy of the proposed resolution to the notice in Form-V. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the persons, who issued notices in Form-II. Learned Government Pleader has produced the record relating to the notices. On a perusal of the same, it is evident that the respondent did not enclose the copy of the proposed resolution to Form-V. I n Ganna Venkatarama Narasaiah vs. Govt. of A.P.[1] this Court held that enclosure of a copy of the proposed resolution to the notice in Form-V is mandatory. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy places reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Y.R.Raghava Reddy vs. Govt. of A.P.[2] and P.Bapu Raju vs. R.D.O., Sangareddy[3]. The first was a case, in which the aggrieved party approached this Court, after the meeting was conducted. Further, the observations made therein in relation to the enclosure of the copy of the proposed resolution are in the form of obiter. So far as the judgment in P.Babu Raju’s case (3 supra) is concerned, learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that it is not at all necessary to enclose a copy of the resolution, since no discussion is permitted under the Rules. Firstly, the enclosure of copy of proposed resolution is a requirement under the Rules. When the Legislation has felt it mandatory to enclose a copy of the resolution, it is difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory. Further, the person facing no confidence motion must know the basis, on which the members have issued requisition. In a given case, if the motion of no confidence is mooted, on the assumption of a particular fact, the aggrieved party can clarify the situation, if the facts are otherwise, and may even convince the members to resile from the requisition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enclosure of a copy of the proposed resolution is discretionary and not mandatory. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the notice, dated 24.01.2009, issued by the respondent in Form-V is set aside. It is however left open to the respondent to issue fresh notice in accordance with law and take further steps. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.02.2009 Note: Issue operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2060 of 2009 Date: 18.02.2009 JSU [1] 2009(1) ALD 25 [2] 1999(2) ALD 298 (DB) [3] 2000(2) ALD 317