THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24511 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is a member of Grampanchayat, Penchikalpet of Elkathurthy Mandal, Karimnagar District. Himself and seven other members submitted a requisition on 1.10.2008 in the form prescribed, under the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.4.1998 (for short “the Rules”), requesting the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Karimnagar, the 2 nd respondent herein, to convene a meeting of the Grampanchayat, to consider the motion of no-conﬁdence, against the Upa-sarpanch. The 2nd respondent issued notice dated 10.10.2008, in Form IV, proposing to convene a meeting on 22.10.2008. W.P.No.22871 of 2008 was filed by the Upa-sarpanch, the 3rd respondent herein, challenging the notice dated 10.10.2008, mainly on the ground that the notice did not maintain 15 clear days of gap, as required under Rule 3 of the Rules. The writ petition was allowed on 21.10.2008, on ﬁnding that the gap was only 12 days. It was left open to the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice. The 2nd respondent issued fresh notice dated 21.10.2008 in Form IV, proposing to convene meeting on 12.11.2008. The petitioner challenges the same, on the ground that the meeting is being convened, beyond 30 days of time, stipulated under rule 3 of the Rules. He contends that even if the time, during which the order of stay was operative, is excluded, the impugned notice violates rule 3. Heard Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. It is no doubt true that rule 3 of the Rules mandates that a meeting to take up the motion of no- conﬁdence, against the Sarpanch or Upa-sarpanch of a Grampanchayat, must be convened within 30 days from the date on which the requisition in the prescribed form is delivered, and if no developments have taken place, the prohibition contained in the rule gets attracted. The notice in Form-I was delivered by the petitioner on 1.10.2008 and the meeting is proposed to be convened on 12.11.2008. The rule making authority contemplated the situations of the proceedings being stayed and provided for the eventuality. Rule 3 itself mandates that if the proceedings of motion of no-conﬁdence are stayed, the period of 30 days must be counted, from the date on which stay is vacated. In the instant case, this court disposed of W.P.No.22871 of 2008 on 21.10.2008. Therefore, 30 days period has to be reckoned from that date. The meeting is proposed to be convened, within 30 days from 21.10.2008. Therefore, no illegality can be said to have crept in. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 10th November 2008 PAN