The issuance of a fifteen-day notice for a no-confidence motion is mandatory; however, failure to provide such notice does not invalidate proceedings unless it can be shown to cause prejudice.

1.The Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice - dated 28-8-2003 issued by the Revenue Divisional officer, Peddapalli to the petitioner who is the elected President of Mandal Parishad, Sreerampur Mandal, Karimnagar district, intimating her that the meeting of the Mandal Parishad will be convened on 15-9-2003 at 11.00 a.m. for considering the motion of no confidence moved against her.

2. At the time of hearing before the learned single Judge, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in W. A. Nos. 1755 and 1579 of 2003 (B. Ananda Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial) dated 16-10-2003 wherein, interpreting R.3 of the 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 as notified in G. O. Ms. No. 200 P.R. and R. D. (Mandal - I) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules") dated 28-4-1998, it was held that service of notice of fifteen days clear notice as contemplated in R.3 of the Rules is mandatory and insufficiency of the notice in Form No V annexed to the Rules shall make the meeting and the proceedings taken thereunder as nullity. It was further held that fifteen days clear notice would mean that there shall be clear fifteen days time from the date of service of the notice till the date of meeting excluding the date of service of notice and the date of such proposed meeting of motion and that issuance of such notice is mandatory. Learned single Judge notice that in Shyabuddinsab v. Municipality of Gadag Betgeri , AIR 1955 SC 314 and K. Narasimhaiah v. Singri Gowda , AIR 1966 SC 330 , Supreme Court has held that unless it is shown that prejudice is caused by irregularities in service of notice, the proceedings cannot be interfered with and that the judgments of the Supreme Court were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench in Anandareddy's case. Learned single Judge also referred to a Full Bench decision of the Orissa High Court in Sarat Padhi v. State of Orissa , AIR 1988 Orissa 116, wherein considering similar provisions of Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, it was held that requirement of giving the notice, fixing the margin of time between the date of the notice and the date of the meeting are mandatory, but the notice of service on the members is only directory and failure by any member to receive the notice at all or allowing him less than 15 clear days notice before the date of the meeting will not render the meeting invalid. Learned single Judge also made reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan , 1997(7) SCC 510 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 that mere issuance of notice under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sufficient compliance irrespective of the fact it is received or not. Reference was also made to decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram , 1969 (3) SCC 28 : AIR 1970 SC 214 and State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh , 1976 (3) SCC 242 : (AIR 1977 SC 629) for the proposition that once an order is issued and is sent to the concerned government servant, it must be held to have been communicated to him and it does not matter when it is actually received by the recipient.

3. On consideration of the material placed before the Court and the aforesaid decisions, learned single Judge was of the view that the issue, whether service of notice with clear fifteen days on ev