THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 22252 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was elected as Upa-Sarpanch of Narsingapoor Grampanchayat of Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar District. A notice in Form No.1 of the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.4.1998 was submitted by seven members of the Grampanchayat to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Karimnagar, the 3 rd respondent herein, with a prayer to convene a meeting to discuss the motion of No-conﬁdence, against the petitioner. Acting on the same, the 3rd respondent issued notice in Form No.4, proposing to convene a meeting on 14.10.2008. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 5th respondent, who was initially married to one Mr.Linga Reddy, had deserted the marriage and migrated to another village, and thereafter Mr.Linga Reeddy married Smt.Jyothi, the 6th respondent herein. He contends that the 5th respondent has impersonated as 6th respondent and got elected as member of the Grampanchayat. He pleads that though the petitioner and certain others have submitted a representation to the District Collector and other authorities to take action against the 5th respondent, no action has been taken thereon, and as a retaliatory step, the 5th respondent had engineered the motion of No-conﬁdence. He further contends that the notice in Form No.4 does not contain any date. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had obtained instructions, at the stage of admission. He pleads that the notice in Form No.4 is dated 25.9.2008 and the clear gap of 15 days is maintained, between the date of notice and date of meeting. The ﬁrst objection raised by the petitioner is as to the competence of respondent 5 and 6, as the case may be, to contest as member. This court cannot decide that question. Even assuming that an individual got elected himself or herself as a member, by resorting to impersonation, the forum is elsewhere. As long as the election is not set aside by any one, the member is competent to hold the office. The second objection raised by the petitioner is about the legality of notice in Form No.4. At the top of the notice, the month and year is mentioned and not the date. The petitioner states that unless the date is mentioned, it is diﬃcult to evaluate as to whether the period mentioned in Rule 3 of the Rules is maintained between the date of notice and date of meeting. It may be true that the date is not mentioned, but after perusing making a reference to the original proceedings, learned Government Pleader submits that the notice is dated 25.9.2008. There is intrinsic material to prove that the notice in Form No.1 was submitted on 17.9.2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the notice in Form No.4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all the objections, if any, in the meeting itself. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ 13th October 2008 PAN