APHC010048952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2872/2026 Between: 1. M KALAVATHI, W/O M. SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC MPTC MEMBER, R/O. 10-38, GAJULAPALLI VILLAGE, J.K. KOTTAPALLI, AMADAGUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 515134 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.522237 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT,515134 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO, KADIRI DIVISION, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, 5. GAJJALA PRASAD REDDY, S/O. SURYANARAYANA REDDY AGE 55 YEARS, OCC PRESIDENT, AMADAGUR MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, R/O. PUTTAPARTHI CONSITUENCY, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT ...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 p. 2 SRS,J W.P.No.2872 of 2026 pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the inaction and failure of the 4th Respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Division, in not acting upon the representation/notice dated 17.12.2025 submitted by the Petitioner for initiation of No-Confidence Motion against the 5th Respondent, as illegal arbitrary, unjust and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder, and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to forthwith take appropriate action as per law and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the 4th Respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Division, Sri Satya Sai District, to forthwith consider the representation/notice dated 17.12.2025 submitted by the Petitioner and issue a fresh notice in Form-V by strictly adhering to the mandatory 15 clear days9 notice period as prescribed under the AndhraAct and the Rules made thereunder, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Rama Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. Sushma Yaganti, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 3 and 4. 2. The notice in respect of respondent No.5 is dispensed with, since no adverse order affecting his rights or interests is passed. Page 3 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.2872 of 2026 3. The above writ petition was filed to declare the inaction of respondent No.4 in acting upon the representation/notice, dated 17.12.2025, submitted by the petitioner for initiating 8No Confidence Motion9 against respondent No.5, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, MPTC Member of Amadagur Mandal, along with five others made a representation, dated 17.12.2025 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri Division, annexing Form-II as mandated in the UPA Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or President / Vice President of Mandal Parishad or Chairman / Vice Chairman / Zilla Prarishad Rules (hereinafter referred to as 8the Rules9), issued in G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Manual-II) Department, dated 28.04.1998, requesting to initiate 8No Confidence Motion9 against respondent No.5. However, respondent No.4 failed to adhere to the procedure mandated under Rule 3 of the Rules. 5. The writ petition was listed on three occasions and adjourned at the request of learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Panchayat Raj and Revenue, enabling them to get instructions. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submitted the instructions furnished by respondent No.4 vide R.C.No.649/2025/C, dated 09.02.2026. 7. As seen from the instructions, Amadagur Mandal of Sri Satya Sai District was earlier part of Kadiri Division, and after the bifurcation of the divisions, it was transferred from Kadiri Division to Puttaparthy Division as per G.O.Ms.No.530 dated 30.12.2025. Due to the procedural restructuring, the petitioner9s application could not be processed within the time. p. 4 SRS,J W.P.No.2872 of 2026 8. Rule 3 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.200, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Manual-II) Department, dated 28.04.1998 prescribes that the concerned officer specified in Rule 2 shall convene and preside over a meeting for the consideration of the motion at the office of a Gram Panchayat, or at the Mandal Praja Parishad or at Zilla Praja 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. 9. In the case at hand, as seen from the endorsement, the notice was delivered on 17.12.2025. Since the time of thirty days prescribed in Rule 3 has elapsed and no meeting was convened, the petitioner and others have to make a fresh request. In fact, the instructions would indicate that if the petitioner and others make a fresh representation or proposal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Puttaparthy, will undertake and examine the same in accordance with the Rules. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will make a fresh proposal to the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Puthaparthy. 11. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the disputed questions of fact, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh proposal to respondent No.4, as per the procedure mandated in G.O.Ms.No.200 dated 28.04.1998. If the petitioner or other members make a proposal, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the same strictly as per the Rules. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 11.02.2026 p. 5 SRS,J W.P.No.2872 of 2026 IKN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2872 of 2026 Date: 11.02.2026 IKN