IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22871 of 2008 Between: Mamidi Ram Reddy S/o.Veera Reddy of Penchikalapeta Gram panchayat, Elkathurthy Mandal Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector (PR), Karimnagar 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Karimnagar 3 Gram Panchayat, Penchikalapeta,Mandal Elkathurthy Karimnagar District, rep.by its Panchayat Secret 4 Chevula Erraiah S/o.Mallaiah Penchikalapeta Grampanchayat, Elkathurthy Mandal Karimnagar 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 a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus: i. declare the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to conduct meeting of no- conﬁdence motion of upasarpanch of Penchikalapeta Grampanchayat ,on 22.10.2008 by issuing Form-IV notice dated 10.10.2008 as illegal, and arbitrary,and contrary to the Rules-3 of "Motion of no-conﬁdence in Upa Sarpanch of Gram panchayat or Vice President/President of Mandal Parishat or Vice chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishat Rules" duly setting aside the proceeding C/4327/2008 dated 10.10.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Upa-Sarpanch of Penchikalpeta Gram Panchayat, Elkathurthy Mandal, Karimnagar District. Certain members of the Gram Panchayat submitted requisition in Form-I, prescribed under the Rules, issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998, with a request to convene the meeting of the Gram Panchayat to consider the motion of no conﬁdence on the petitioner. Acting on the same, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Karimnagar, the second respondent, issued notice, dated 10.10.2008, in Form-IV proposing to convene the meeting on 22.10.2008. The petitioner challenges the same. It is urged that under Rule 3 of the Rules, a clear 15 days gap is to be maintained between the date of notice and the date of meeting, and admittedly, in the instant case, such a gap is not maintained. Heard Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent. The date of notice in Form-IV is 10.10.2008 and the meeting is proposed to be convened on 22.10.2008. Rule 3 of the Rules mandates that a notice of not less than 15 days shall be given, before a meeting is conducted to take up motion of no conﬁdence. To know whether the date contained in Form-IV, as pleaded by the petitioner is true, learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions. He submits that the date of the notice is 10.10.2008 only. It, thus, clearly emerges that the second respondent did not follow Rule 3 of the Rules, while issuing notice in Form-IV. On this short ground, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. However, it is left open to the second respondent to issue fresh notice in Form-IV, strictly in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules and proceed with further. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.21.10.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note: Communicate operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) GJ