( 1 ) THE petitioner was elected as President of the Mandal Parishad, chillakur Mandal on 22-7-2001.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed questioning the notice dated 5-1-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, gudur proposing to convene the meeting of mandal Parishad on 3-2-2005 at 11. 00 a. m. , to consider the Motion of No Confidence against the petitioner on the basis of a notice received from 10 members of the mandal Parishad informing that they intend to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the President of the Mandal parishad.

( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that the impugned notice is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 245 of the a. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act ) read with Rule 2 of the Rules made under G. O. Ms. No. 200, PRandrd, dated 28-4-1998 and therefore the entire proceedings are liable to be declared as invalid.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the impugned notice was issued in Form-V annexed to the Rules relating to Motion of no Confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram panchayat or Vice-President, President of mandal Parishad or Vice-Chairperson/ chairperson of Zilla Parishad (for short, the rules ) made under G. O. Ms. No. 200, prandrd (Mandal-1), dated 28-4-1998 in exercise of powers conferred under section 245 (1) (2) read with Section 268 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act. It is also not in dispute that along with the said notice in Form-V, the petitioner was served with the notice of intention to move Motion in Form-II of the Rules received by the 2nd respondent from 10 members of mandal Parishad out of 12 members. However, the petitioner alleges that along with the impugned notice in Form-V, a copy of the Motion of No Confidence proposed to be made was not enclosed. He also alleges that such a copy of the motion of no Confidence proposed to be made was not even enclosed with the notice in Form II given by the Members of the Mandal Praja parishad to the 2nd respondent informing their intention to make the Motion against the petitioner. It is contended that enclosing a copy of the motion of No Confidence proposed to be made with both the notice in Form-II as well as the notice in Form-V is mandatory and therefore the entire procedure adopted by the respondents in convening the meeting on 3-2-2005 is not in accordance with law. In the circumstances, this writ petition has been filed on 1-2-2005 to declare the meeting scheduled on 3-2-2005 as arbitrary and illegal and to restrain the respondents from taking any further steps.

( 5 ) AT the outset, it is to be noted that this Court by order dated 2-2-2005 while granting time to the learned Government pleader for Panchayat Raj to produce the record, ordered that the meeting proposed to be held on 3-2-2005 may go on, but in case the motion is carried against the petitioner the same shall not be given effect to.

( 6 ) WHEN the matter is taken up for consideration on 9-2-2005, the learned government Pleader produced the connected record and stated that the meeting was held on 3-2-2005 and the motion of No Confidence was carried against the petitioner. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

( 7 ) HOWEVER, the learned Counsel contends that since a copy of the proposed motion of No Confidence was not enclosed with the Notice in Form-II as well as the notice in Form-V the meeting held on 5-2-2005 was invalid and therefore the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside declaring the same as illegal and unsustainable.

( 8 ) FOR proper appreciation of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to note the relevant statutory provisions so far as they relate to the Mandal Parishads. Section 245 of the Act which deals with the Motion of no Confidence states that a motion expressing want of confidence in the president of the Mandal Parishad may be made by giving a written notice of intention to move the motion in such form and to su