HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22055 of 2010 Date 06.09.2010 Between: R. Srinivas Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District & others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : AGP for Panchayat Raj HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22055 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 28.08.2010 issued by respondent No.1, whereby he has proposed to convene the meeting of Chinnagundavelly Gram Panchayat on 21.09.2010 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is Upa-Sarpanch of the above mentioned Gram Panchayat. Respondent Nos.2 to 8 have issued a notice in Form-I to respondent No.1 for moving no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Respondent No.1 inturn has issued the impugned notice convening the meeting on 21.09.2010 at 11.00 a.m. to consider the said motion of no- confidence. This is assailed in this Writ Petition. At the hearing Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the notice signed by respondents Nos.2 to 8 is not in conformity with the proforma notice prescribed in Form-I. Learned Counsel pointed out that while the prescribed form mandates showing of names and signatures of two persons, who personally delivered the no-confidence motion to respondent No.1, a copy of which is filed by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition, shows that one of the members who delivered the notice did not either sign or show his name. Learned Counsel further submitted that respondent No.3 is an attender working in Anganwadi and, therefore, she is not qualified to hold the office of Ward Member of the Panchayat. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I do not find any merit therein. A careful perusal of the copy of the no-confidence motion issued on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 8 to respondent No.1 shows that while seven members have signed the same, the names of two persons are mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 which pertain to those who have delivered personally the motion notice to respondent No.1. At Sl.No.1, the person concerned has subscribed his signature and has also written his name as K.Parshaiah while at Sl.No.2, the name of P. Yella Reddy is mentioned. No doubt, technically the person at Sl.No.2 has not complied with the requirement of the form, I am of the opinion that the same does not in any manner cause prejudice to the petitioner. The person who signed at Sl.No.7 of the motion is the one who has delivered the motion in person along with the other person by name K.Parshaiah. Therefore, his identity is established. The said person has obviously signed without separately writing his name as was done by K.Parshaiah at Sl.No.1. This lapse, if any, is not fatal and the same does not in any manner affect the validity of the impugned notice. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.3 is not eligible to hold the office of Ward Member, so long as she is not declared as ineligible, she is entitled to participate in the no-confidence motion. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that the competent authority has declared respondent No.3 as ineligible to hold the office of Ward Member. This view of mine is fortified by K.Ramakrishna Rao v. The Secretary, Municipal Council, Medak (W.P.No.5196 of 1970). For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.No.28078 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:06.09.2010 Usd