LAWS(APH)-2009-2-78

B PADMAVATHI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

Decided On February 26, 2009
B.PADMAVATHI Appellant
V/S
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was elected as President of Mandal Praja Parishad, Kodumuru mandal, Kurnool District, in the year 2006. Respondents 2 to 13 submitted a requisition to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, the first respondent, in Form-II of the Rules framed through G. O. Ms. No. 200, dated 28. 04. 1998, issued under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, with a request to convene the meeting of the Mandal Parishad to discuss of motion of No confidence against the petitioner. The first respondent issued a notice, dated 13. 12. 2008 in Form-V proposing to convene the meeting on 27. 12. 2008. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 28378 of 2008 challenging the notice, on the ground that 15 clear days is not maintained between date of notice and date of meeting. The writ petition was allowed on 29. 01. 2009, leaving it open to the first respondent to issue fresh notice.

(2.) THE first respondent issued notice dated 04. 02. 2009, proposing to convene the meeting on 27. 02. 2009. The petitioner submits that the first respondent has no power to issue second notice, since none of the contingencies mentioned in proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules exist. It is contended that according to the proviso to Rule 3, a fresh notice can be issued, only when the holding of meeting in pursuance of a notice issued earlier, was stayed, and in the instant case, the meeting in pursuance of the notice, dated 13. 12. 2008, has already been held. Other grounds are also urged.

(3.) HEARD Sri O. Manohar Reddly, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri K. Ratangapani Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 13.