THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21798 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is a member of Maddipadu Mandal Parishad of Prakasam District. He seeks a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Mandal Parishad Developmnt Oﬃcer, the 3rd respondent herein, in proposing to conduct a special meting on 12.9.2008. She contends that the agenda ﬁxed for the proposed meeting, is contrary to the guidelines contained G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 31.3.1995, and other provisions of law. The petitioner contends that on 2.8.2008, it has been resolved to undertake certain works at the estimates mentioned against each work and hardly within one month, the estimates were revised in a meeting held on 12.9.2008. The petitioner submit that an item discussed and resolved in an ordinary meeting, cannot be the subject matter of the discussion, in an extraordinary meeting, convened within six months. Reliance is placed upon the rule for the conduct of business at the meeting of Mandal Parishad, Zilla Parishad and Standing Committees, issued in G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 31.3.1995. Heard Sri Kurra Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The Mandal Parishad is vested with the power to take decision on various aspects. At a meeting held on 2.8.2008, resolutions were passed approving certain works, apart from reviewing the performance on several subjects. A notice dated 2.9.2008 was issued by the 3rd respondent, proposing to convene a special meeting. The agenda that would be tabled for discussion, was also enclosed. The petitioner did not raise any objection, or initiate any steps, till the meeting was conducted. It was only after completion of the meeting of the Mandal Parishad, that she and certain other members have submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent. As a convener of the Mandal Parishad, the 3rd respondent has absolutely no power to decide upon the legality or otherwise of the resolutions passed therein. Even if there exists any procedural hurdle, in convening a special meeting, or for discussion of any of the items, the petitioner ought to have approached the same authority, or this court, before the meeting was convened. Further, if any resolutions are passed contrary to law, the matter ought to have been brought to the notice of any superior authority, under the relevant provisions of law. Such a course was not adopted. The 3rd respondent does not have the power or jurisdiction, to pass any order, on the representation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 30th September 2008 PAN