THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.24573 OF 2009 Dated 13th November, 2009 Between: Suleman Bin Sayeed …Petitioner And The District Collector and four others …Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was elected as chairperson of Kagaznagar Municipality , Adilabad District. Out of 28 members of the Council, 20 members submitted a requisition on 03.10.2009 before the District Collector, Adilabad District, the first respondent, with a request to convene a meeting to take up a motion of no confidence. The Sub- Collector, Adilabad Revenue Division, Adilabad District, the third respondent, issued a notice dated 07.10.2009 proposing to convene a meeting on 27.10.2009. The petitioner filed W.P.No.22704 of 2009 challenging the said notice. It was urged that the third respondent is not competent to issue the notice though he may be delegated the power to preside over the meeting. The contention of the petitioner was accepted and the writ petition was allowed through order dated 26.10.2009. It was left open to the first respondent to issue notice in accordance with Section 46(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short “the Act”) within one week from the date of order. The first respondent issued the notice dated 29.10.2009 proposing to convene the meeting of the Council on 17.11.2009. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Sri D.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. The first ground urged by the petitioner is that the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law since the meeting is proposed to be convened beyond 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice under Section 46(1) of the Act. It is also pleaded that explanation to Section 46(2) of the Act does not save it. It may be true that the meeting is proposed to be convened beyond one month from the date of delivery of notice. However, this is on account of the fact that the notice issued by the third respondent on earlier occasion was set aside by this Court. After setting aside that notice, this Court specifically permitted the first respondent to issue fresh notice within one week. The impugned notice was issued accordingly. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any genuine grievance about it as long as the order in W.P.No.22704 of 2009 was not challenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice was issued in a Form, which is not relevant. However, it is not stated that any Form is prescribed for this purpose. The mere reference to a Form, which may not have relevance, cannot constitute the basis to set aside the notice. The last ground urged by the petitioner is that the signatures on the requisition for no confidence are not genuine. This Court cannot embark into such an enquiry at this stage. By operation of the principle of constructive res-judicata, this ground is deemed to have been raised and rejected, in the earlier writ petition. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated 13th November, 2009 vrn