IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 17909 of 2008 Between: Tummalapally Rajavardhan Reddy S/o. T.Pulla Reddy R/o. Banda Timmapur village Nampally Mandal Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad 2 State Election Commission Govt. of A.P., Rep. by its Chief Electoral Officer Buddha Bhavan, Secunderabad 3 The District Collector & District Election Authority Nalgonda District 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer & Dy. District Election Authority, Nalgonda 5 Mandal Parishad Development Officer Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District 6 A.Srinivasa Redy S/o. A.Narsimha Reddy R/o. Tirumalagiri Nampally Mandal Nalgonda District 7 C.Lakshmamma W/o. C.Anjaiah, R/o. Nampally, Nalgonda District 8 Vishnu Murthy S/o. Lakshmipathi, R/o. Mustipally Nalgonda District 9 Pula Venkataiah S/o. Chinna Maraiah, R/o. Nampally, Nalgonda District 10 Palsa Parameswari W/o. Saidulu, R/o. Mellavai, Nalgonda District 11 Udutha Bikshmaiah S/o. Udutha Narsimha, R/o. Nerellapalli, Nalgonda District 12 Kommu Venkataiah S/o. Yellaiah R/o. Tungapadu, Nalgonda District 13 Depavath Parusuram S/o. Depavath Tourya R/o. Nama Naik Thanda, Pasnoor Village Nalgonda District 14 T.Neelamma W/o. Yadaiah R/o. Mahammadapur Nalgonda 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 any Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the notice in Form no. V dated 07/08/2008 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, in utter breach of the provisions of the Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and consequently stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice in From No. V dt. 07/08/2008 issued by the 4th respondent including conveying of the meeting in pursuance of the notice in Form No. V dt. 07/08/2008, pending disposal of the above WP. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17909 OF 2008 ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 14 as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The petitioner herein is the President of Mandal Praza Parishad, Nampally, Nalgonda District, having been elected as such in the elections held on 28.6.2006. This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the notice dated 7.8.2008 issued by the 4th respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer - in Form-V of the Rules Relating to No-conﬁdence Against Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, or President or Vice-President of Mandal Parishad, or Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson of the Zilla Parishad, made under G.O.Ms.No.200, P.R. & R.D., dated 28.4.1998 convening the meeting of the Mandal Parishad on 28.8.2008 for consideration of the No-Conﬁdence Motion against the petitioner under Section 245 (1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) as arbitrary and illegal. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned notice dated 7.8.2008 is in breach of sub-section (1) of Section 245 of the Act under which notice of motion against the same person more than once during his term of office is barred. It is not in dispute that on a notice of intention dated 15.7.2008 made by the respondents 6 to 14 herein to move the motion of no-conﬁdence against the petitioner herein, the 4th respondent initially issued a notice dated 23.7.2008 in Form-V of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.4.1998 convening the meeting of the Mandal Parishad on 12.8.2008. However, subsequently, having found that the two years period from the date of assumption of oﬃce of the petitioner as required under the ﬁrst proviso to Section 245(1) of the Act was not completed, the 4th respondent by memo dated 30.08.2008 cancelled the meeting scheduled on 12.8.2008. Subsequently, the respondents 6 to 14 made another notice of intention on 2.8.2008 and pursuant thereto the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice dated 7.8.2008 convening a fresh meeting on 28.8.2008 for consideration of the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 7.8.2008 is barred by the second proviso to Section 245 (1) of the Act, under which notice of motion against the same person cannot be made more than once during his term of office. It is true that the second proviso to Section 245(1) of the Act bars making notice of motion against the same person more than once during his term of oﬃce. However, in the case on hand, pursuant to the earlier notice of intention dated 15.7.2008 made by the respondents 6 to 14, though the 4th respondent convened a meeting for consideration of the no-conﬁdence motion vide notice in Form-V, dated 23.7.2008, admittedly no meeting took place as scheduled on 12.8.2008. Thus, the impugned notice now issued in Form-V, dated 23.7.2008 cannot be held to be a second attempt falling within the scope of the second proviso to Section 245(1) of the Act. Having considered the scope and object of Section 245 (1) of the Act, this Court in TIPARTHI CHANDRA MOULI v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.[1] expressed the same opinion. In the light of the ratio laid down in the said decision, the contention of the writ petitioner that the impugned notice is hit by the second proviso to Section 245 (1) of the Act cannot be accepted. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that having called for a report from the Mandal Parishad Development Oﬃcer with regard to the genuineness of the signatures on the notice of intention to move motion of no- conﬁdence made by the respondents 6 to 14 on 2.8.2008, the 4th respondent committed an error in issuing the impugned notice convening the meeting on 28.8.2008 without waiting for such report from the Mandal Parishad Development Oﬃcer. On that ground, the petitioner contends that the impugned notice is vitiated on account of non-application of mind and thus the very convening of the meeting is not in accordance with law. I do not ﬁnd any substance in the above contention also since it is not disputed by the petitioner that a report was submitted by the Mandal Parishad Development Oﬃcer on 8.8.2008 stating that the signatures on the notice of intention made by the respondents 6 to 14 were tallying with the specimen signatures on their respective nomination forms. May be that, the impugned notice was issued on 7.8.2008 i.e., prior to the receipt of the report dated 8.8.2008, however, in the absence of any statutory provision under the Act or the Rules made thereunder making it a condition precedent to call for a report before issuing the Form-V notice, the action of the 4th respondent cannot be held to be illegal. Apparently, the report was called for from the Mandal Parishad Development Oﬃcer for conﬁrmation of genuineness of the notice of intention dated 2.8.2008 given by the respondents 6 to 14 and the report dated 8.8.2008 placed before this Court shows that the signatures on the notice dated 2.8.2008 tallied with the specimen signatures. Hence, the impugned notice cannot be held to be vitiated merely because the same was issued without waiting for the veriﬁcation report and on that ground no Mandamus can be issued as prayed for. On a plain reading of Section 245(1) of the Act, it is clear that the notice of intention to move the motion expressing want of conﬁdence is to be made to the prescribed authority in writing signed by not less than one- half of the total members of the Mandal Praza Parishad and that no such notice of motion can be made within two years of the date of assumption of oﬃce by the person against whom the motion is sought to be moved. The further requirement is that no such notice shall be made against the same person more than once during his term of office. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner assumed the oﬃce of President on 22.7.2006. Hence, the notice of intention to move motion of no-conﬁdence made by the respondents 6 to 14 on 2.8.2008 being beyond two years of the date of assumption of oﬃce by the petitioner is valid. As already expressed above, the said notice cannot be held to be a second attempt since no meeting took place pursuant to the earlier notice of intention dated 15.7.2008. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the notice of intention to move the no-conﬁdence motion dated 2.8.2008 was made by less than half of the total members of Mandal Praza Parishad. Hence, the impugned notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 7.8.2008 convening the meeting on 28.8.2008 for consideration of the no-conﬁdence motion cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 27.08.2008 gbs [1] 1998 (1) ALD 431