THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23458 of 2008 ORDER: Elections to the Mandal Parishad, Tallarevu Mandal were held in the year 2006. Smt. Aradadi Krishna Kumari, the 4th respondent herein was elected as the President of the Parishad. A notice in Form-II, appended to the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28-04-2008 (for short ‘the Rules’), signed by 14 members; was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Kakinada, the 3rd respondent herein. After veriﬁcation of the genuinity of the signatures, the 3rd respondent issued notices dated 08-10-2008, in Form No.V, proposing to convene a meeting of the Mandal Parishad, on 04-11-2008, to consider the motion of No-conﬁdence against the 4th respondent. A copy of the proposed resolution was also appended. The petitioners are members of the Mandal Parishad. Their plea is that the 4th respondent had managed and engineered the proposed No-conﬁdence motion, so that, on its being defeated, she can remain in the oﬃce, for the rest of the term, without the fear of the No-conﬁdence motion. It is alleged that the signatures of some of the members were forged, and that the 3rd respondent did not properly verify the contents of signatures, in Form-II. Heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The petitioners are not the signatories to Form No.II, by which a motion of No-conﬁdence was initiated against the 4th respondent. Nor, for that matter, they are the supporters of the 4th respondent. It is strongly urged that the proceedings were initiated only with a view to bring about an abortive motion of No- conﬁdence, so that the possibility of moving a motion of No-confidence is obviated. One of the strong grounds urged by the petitioners is that, a signatory to Form-II, by name, Kadali Sri Rama Murthy, had sworn to an aﬃdavit, that he signed Form-II, on an impression that it was in connection with the transfer of Mandal Engineer. He did not join as a party to the writ petition. If one takes the developments and methods, that are being adopted in the recent past, in the context of No- conﬁdence motions, the change of stand, by any member, is not a surprise. Ethics, principles and norms are just discarded and ignored. Neither this Court, nor the 3rd respondent can go into the intention on the part of the members, to initiate steps for No-conﬁdence motion. The only veriﬁcation, that can be undertaken, is, as to compliance with the Rules. Once the proceedings are issued in accordance with Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder, they cannot be interfered with, even if it is a fact that the motion of No-conﬁdence was initiated only with an object of defeating it. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt:29-10-2008. KO