IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 25326 of 2008 Between: M. Narsimlu, S/o. Jangaiah, and President of Nawabpet Mandal Parishad, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ranga Reddy District at Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District 4 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nawabpet Mandal Parishad, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent i.e. Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Vikarabad Division, Ranga Reddy District in not serving the notice No. A/2440/2008 dated 3-11-2008 issued in Form-V with regard to holding of a meeting of Mandal Parishad on 19-11-2008 as contemplated under Rule 3 relating to the Motion of No Conﬁdence against Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, or President of Vice-president of Mandal Parishad, or Chair Person or Vice-Chair person of the Zilla Parishad issued vide Go Ms.No. 200, Panchayat Raj and Rurla Development (Mandal-I) dated 28-4-1998 published in A.P. Gazette R.S. to part VII - Ext Dt. 5-5-1998 for considering the motion of no conﬁdence moved against the petitioner under Section 245 of AP Panchayat Raj Act 1994 as illegal and vitiated as the whole proceedings are contrary to the provisions of the AP Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and the Rules made there under and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.25326 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri G.Elisha, Learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayats and Zilla Parishads. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that 15 days clear notice, as prescribed in Rule 3, for a ‘no conﬁdence motion’ to be tabled has not been complied with in the case on hand and, while the notice was issued on 3.11.2008, it was served on the petitioner on 10.11.2008 informing him that the no conﬁdence motion was proposed to be moved on 19.11.2008. While there is 15 days clear notice between the date of issuance of the notice and the date of the no conﬁdence motion, the period from the date of issuance of the notice till the date of its service is hardly a week. A Full Bench of this Court, in K.Sujatha v. Government of A.P.[1], held that while dispatch of notice of the motion to every member with clear 15 days between the date of issuance of notice and the date of convening of meeting is mandatory, service of the said notice on a member with less than 15 clear days prior notice was not mandatory. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that certain aspects were not brought to the notice of the Full Bench and that the matter required reconsideration. Learned Counsel would point out that, in similar circumstances, a Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23400 of 2008 dated 29.10.2008 had referred the matter to a Division Bench and that the Division Bench had heard the matter and had reserved it for orders on 17.11.2008. As certainty and uniformity in the administration of justice is of paramount importance, a learned Single Judge cannot diﬀer from a decision of a Full Bench unless the said decision is either overruled by the Supreme Court or where the law laid down by the Full Bench is inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court. (The Commissioner of Income-tax v. M/s.B.R.Constructions, Hyderabad [2]). It is not even the case of the petitioner that the decision of the Full Bench in K.Sujatha1 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. All that is contended is that the judgment of the Full Bench needs reconsideration. In such circumstances, it is not for this Court to take a view diﬀerent from that of the Full Bench. That a similar matter has subsequently been referred by another Learned Single Judge to a Division Bench would also not justify this Court taking a different view. Following the Full Bench judgment in K.Sujatha1, and since the period from the date of issuance of the notice till the date of convening of the meeting is more than 15 days, the writ petition is liable to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the meeting is scheduled to be held tomorrow and that there is an urgency in the matter. Registry to furnish a copy of this order, on payment of the prescribed charges, by tomorrow. ______________ 18-11-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow B/o asp [1] 2004 (3) ALD 1 (FB) [2] 1994 (1) An.W.R 450 (FB)