APHC010568962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SETTY NEELAVENI, W/O PRASAD, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC MEMBER OF ANANTHAGIRI MANDALL PARISHAD AND PRESIDENT OF MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD (MPP) OF ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SITA RAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PADERU, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR FAC/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER SUB COLLECTORS OFFICE, PADERU, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PARISHAD, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, ALURI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. TADABARIKI MITULA, W/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF CHILAKALAGADDA SEGMENT, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF CHILAKALAGADDA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DIS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29377/2025 SETTY NEELAVENI, W/O PRASAD, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC MEMBER OF ANANTHAGIRI MANDALL PARISHAD AND PRESIDENT OF MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD (MPP) OF ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SITA RAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PADERU, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU ANDHRA PRADESH. THE SUBCOLLECTOR FAC/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER SUB COLLECTORS OFFICE, PADERU, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL PARISHAD, ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. TADABARIKI MITULA, W/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF CHILAKALAGADDA SEGMENT, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF CHILAKALAGADDA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SETTY NEELAVENI, W/O PRASAD, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC MEMBER OF ANANTHAGIRI MANDALL PARISHAD AND PRESIDENT OF MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD (MPP) OF ANANTHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SITA RAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PADERU, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, THE SUBCOLLECTOR FAC/ REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER SUB COLLECTORS OFFICE, PADERU, ALURI SITHARAMA RAJU THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL SITHARAMA RAJU TADABARIKI MITULA, W/O SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF CHILAKALAGADDA SEGMENT, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF CHILAKALAGADDA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 2 6. URAMA SANKUNTHALA, W/O B NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC.MPTC OF KIVARLLA SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF PINAKOTA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. SIRAGAM SRAVANI, W/O BHAIRAVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF PEDAKOTA SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF PEDAKOTA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. KURISELA ARUNA, W/O NAVEEN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF BORRA SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF BORRA VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. SMT SOBHA JAYASRI, W/O CHINNARAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF PEDABIDDA SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF MEDAPARTHY VILLAGE, PEDABIDDA PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. SIRAGAM ASHOK KUMAR, S/O SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF BHEEMPHOLU SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF NANDAKOTA VILLAGE, BHEEMPHOLU PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 11. SARA RATNAKUMARI, W/O JAGANDHAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. MPTC OF TOKURU SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF SISGUDA VILLAGE, TOKURU PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 12. VANTHALA TAMANNA, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC.MPTC OF VENGADA SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF BALLAMAMIDI VILLAGE, PINAMPADU PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 3 13. K TAVITI NAIDU, S/O APPALA SWAMI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.MPTC OF GUMMAKOTA SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF SINGAVARAM VILLAGE, GUMMAKOTA PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 14. RAMSALA VENKATA RAMA LAKSHMI, W/O RAMANNA DORA, AGED MAJOR, OCC. MPTC OF PINAKOTA SEGMENT, RESIDENT OF JEENAVADU VILLAGE, PINAKOTA PANCHAYATH, ANATHAGIRI MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent No.3 in issuing the impugned notice in RC No. 503/SA-A Dated 14.10.2025 fixing the meeting for no- confidence motion on 30.10.2025 pursuant to the notice of intention dated 26.09.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to all cannons of Justice as well as oppose to Section 245 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, consequentially, direct the respondent No.3 not to proceed with the meeting of no- confidence of the Ananthagiri, Mandal Parishad scheduled on 30.10.2025 or any subsequent date pursuant to the notice of intention dated 26.09.2024 as well as the Notice in RC No. 503/SA-A Dated 14.10.2025. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent No.3 not to proceed with the meeting of no- confidence of the Ananthagiri, Mandal Parishad scheduled on 30.10.2025 or any subsequent date pursuant to the notice of intention dated 26.09.2024 as well as the Notice in RC No. 503/SA-A: Dated: 14.10.2025, pending disposal of the above writ petition. RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 4 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 5 ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent no.3 in issuing impugned notice vide RC No.503/SA-A, dated 14.10.2025 fixing the meeting for no-confidence motion on 30.10.2025 pursuant to the notice of intention dated 26.09.2024. 2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that Sub Section (3) of Section 245 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 in clear and unambiguous terms mandates that the Presiding Authority shall convene a special meeting for discussion on no-confidence motion within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of notice of intention to move no-confidence motion and though notice of intention to move no-confidence motion was received on 26.09.2025 as could be seen from the endorsement of the office found on no-confidence motion, the respondent no.3 issued the impugned notice fixing date to convene a special meeting on 30.10.2025, which is beyond expiry of thirty RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 6 days mandatory time limit fixed and therefore, the impugned notice having been issued in violation of the provisions of the Act is illegal and arbitrary and the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj and Revenue, in one voice contended that initially motion proposed to be made dated 26.09.2025 was only handed over on 26.09.2025 and accordingly the authority concerned made an endorsement on it of even date and thereafter Form-II notice of intention dated 26.09.2025 along with copy of the motion proposed to be made was handed over to the authority on 09.10.2025 and the same was received and was signed on the same date as could be perceived from the endorsement of the office appear on form-II and thus, the special meeting fixed on 30.10.2025 falls within thirty (30) days as mandated by Sub Section (3) of Section 245 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. They would further contend that there is neither violation nor infraction of statutory provisions as alleged by the petitioner. The impugned notice does not warrant any interference of this Court. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 7 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Rule-3 of Rules relating to Motion of No-Confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice-President/President of Mandal Parishad or Vice Chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishad issued vide G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchyat Raj & Rural Development (Mandal-I), dated 28.04.1998 reads thus: “3. The concerned officer specified in Rule 2 shall then convene and preside over a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of a Gram Panchayat, or at the Mandal Parishad or at the Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, on a date appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under rule 2 was delivered to him. He shall give to every member of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad, as the case may be, the notice of not less than fifteen clear days excluding the date of the notice and the date of the proposed meeting of such meeting in Form- IV, or in Form-V or in Form-VI annexed to these rules either in English or in Telugu or in Urdu language, whichever is applicable. ……” 7. The above said Rule in clear terms mandates that the concerned office shall convene a meeting for consideration of the motion on a date appointed which shall not be later than thirty date from the date on which the notice under Rule-2 was delivered to him. According to the petitioner the notice under Rule-2 (Form-II) was delivered to the concerned officer on 26.09.2025 and thus the date fixed for convene meeting on 30.10.2025 is beyond thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of notice under Rule-2 and therefore, there is infraction of Rule-3. Whereas, according to the respondents RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 8 the Form-II notice was received on 09.10.2025 and hence the date fixed to convene meeting falls well within thirty (30) days stipulated under Rule-2. 8. Perusal of motion proposed shows that it did contain endorsement of Sub Collector’s office dated 26.09.2025. Whereas the Form-II (notice under Rule-2) shows that it contained endorsement dated 09.10.2025. Rule-2 specifies that the meeting for the consideration of the motion shall be convened within thirty (30) from the date of receipt of notice under Rule-2, which was received on 09.10.2025 as could be seen from the endorsement contained on it. Therefore, considering the submission made by learned counsel for respondents that form-II along with motion to be made was received on 09.10.2025, fixing the date to convene meeting for consideration of motion on 30.10.2025 is well within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of notice under Rule-2. Therefore, there is no infraction of Rule-3 in convening meeting for consideration as alleged by the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves dismissal. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to direct the authorities to scrupulously follow Rules-8 & 10 of G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998, while proceeding further with no confidence motion meeting. No RC,J W.P.No.29377 of 2025 9 such direction in fact is necessary, since the authorities have to follow every Rule of the Government Order while dealing with the matter. 10. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the authorities to follow all the relevant Rules of G.O.Ms.No.200, dated 28.04.1998 scrupulously. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR