IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 504 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 26/02/2009 in WP NO : 3784 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt.B.Padmavathi W/o.Venkateswarlu Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Kurnool Kurnool District 2 G.Saradamma W/o.G.Venkateswarlu Kodumuru village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 3 B.Driver Muniswami S/o.B.Bollanna Kodumuru village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 4 K.Madava Swamy S/o.K.Yellappa Kodumuru village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 5 Pemaram Lakshmanna S/o.Domanna Kodumuru village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 6 B.Venkateswaramma W/o.B.Venkateswarlu Amadaguntla village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 7 K.Bhagyalakshmi W/o.K.Srinivasulu Kodumuru village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 8 Yellamma W/o.Achanna Venkatagiri Village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 9 G.Hanumanthu S/o.Jamanna Mudumalgurthy village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 10 B.Gidamma W/o.B.Lachappa Pyalakurthyi village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 11 G.Eramma W/o.Eranna Pyalakurthyi village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 12 K.Raghavendra S/o.Giddaiah Pyalakurthyi village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District 13 H.Sunkulamma W/o.Maddileti Anugonda village Kodumuru Mandal, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 2 to 13: K. Ratangapani Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No : 504 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkari,J) The appellant-writ petitioner earlier preferred Writ Petition No. 28378 of 2008 questioning the Form V Notice dated 13.12.2008 issued under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act,1994 (for short ‘the Act’) in convening a meeting to discuss ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the appellant. Under the said notice, meeting was convened on 27.12.2008. Questioning the notice, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that clear 15 days notice is not intervening between the date of notice and the date of proposed meeting. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 29.1.2009 and the operative portion reads as follows: “In the instant case, the notice is dated 13.12.2008, and the meeting was proposed to be held on 27.12.2008. The Rule mandates that date of notice and date of meeting must be excluded, while reckoning 15 clear days. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. Inasmuch as the notice is set aside, it shall be open to the first respondent to issue fresh notice, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.” Later, the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 4.2.2009 proposing to convene a meeting on 27.2.2009. The same is again questioned by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 3784 of 2009 on the ground that by virtue of the proviso, second notice cannot be issued. The learned single Judge considered the said aspect, particularly, in the light of his earlier order, the operative portion of which is extracted above and came to the conclusion that there is no bar for issuing the second notice and thereby dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the second notice is not permissible as per the proviso to Rule (3) read with Section 245 of second proviso. The said contention is supported by the observations of the learned single Judge in earlier writ petition by claiming that the earlier notice was found to be defective and thereby the second notice cannot be issued in accordance with law once again between the tenure of two years. We have considered the aforesaid contention in the light of orders in the writ petitions filed by the appellant himself. It is note worthy that the first order of the learned single Judge, which is extracted above, remains unchallenged and that order itself permitted fresh notice to be issued. While the said order has become final, effect has to be given to the observations contained therein. In addition thereto, under Section 245 of the Act, second proviso imposes a prohibition to issue ‘such’ notice to the same person more than once during his term of office. The word ‘such notice’ used in the said proviso has necessarily to be interpreted to be a notice as required under sub-clause (1) of Section 245. Therefore, if the earlier notice is not in accordance with Section 245 Sub-Clause (1), it is not a notice within the wordings of the second proviso. ‘Such notice’ referred to therein, should be a notice requisite in accordance with sub-clause (1). Therefore, the first notice has to be ignored as nonest and the earlier writ petition was rightly allowed on that ground. The notice now issued and impugned in Writ Petition No. 3784 of 2009 and the present appeal, therefore, cannot be said to be second notice so as to attract the second proviso. In that view of the matter also, we do not find any error warranting correction. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 23rd April, 2009 ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J pnb