IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26503 of 2008 Between: Kokkiligadda Stalin Babu, S/o. Krupandamdam, Ghantasala Mandal Pharishad, Ghantasala Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam Division, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ghantasala Mandal, Ghantasala, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in issuing notice unde Form-V, dated 22-11- 2008 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14 of the constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the AP Panchayat Raj Act, and the Rules made there under and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 26503 OF 2008 ORDER: Form II, whereby at least half of the members of the Mandal Parishad are required to give notice to the R.D.O. of their intention to make a motion expressing no confidence at a meeting specially to be convened for that purpose, is required to be accompanied by a copy of the proposed motion and to be signed by the R.D.O. The Form-II notice, as produced before this Court, has not been signed by the R.D.O. While there are initials on the left of the said Form-II, which the Learned G.P. now states to be that of the R.D.O, Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would draw attention of this Court to the signature of the R.D.O. in Form -V, and point out the variance in the signature. While the Form-V notice addressed to each member by the R.D.O is signed by her, the Form- II notice is not. The very fact that the R.D.O. has not signed the Form-II, and the signature portion thereof has been left blank would show that the requirement of Form-II being signed by the R.D.O has not been complied with. Both the Learned G.P. for Panchayat Raj and Sri Y.Ramtheertha, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, would fairly state that it would suffice if this Court were to quash the notice in Form-II leaving it open to the members of the Mandal Parishad to issue a notice in Form-II afresh and, thereafter, for the R.D.O. to take action in accordance with law. What is under challenge in this writ petition is the notice issued in Form V. Form-V is issued as a consequence of the notice received by the R.D.O in Form-II. Since the said Form-II does not bear the signature of the R.D.O, as mandated in the form itself, all consequential proceedings thereafter including issuance of Form-V notice must be quashed. Form-V notice is quashed in view of the infirmity in the notice issued in Form-II. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the members of the Mandal Parishad from issuing Form-II notice afresh to the R.D.O and for the R.D.O, thereafter, to take action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________ 8-12-2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s cost B/o asp