Smt.Yarra Hymavathi, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO Writ Appeal No.85 of 2018 Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 38713 of 2017 dated 21.11.2017. The appellant herein filed the Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 28.10.2017, as well as the proceedings dated 22.9.2017 of the District Panchayat Officer, Srikakulam; and to restore her cheque drawing powers with respect to the subject Gram Panchayat.

By the proceedings dated 22.9.2017, the District Panchayat Officer, Srikakulam, relying on the report of the Extension Officer (PR & RD), temporarily suspended the cheque drawing powers of the appellant-writ petitioner, and directed that Panchayat funds should be drawn by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer until further orders. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 28.10.2017, the District Panchayat Officer directed the appellant-writ petitioner to deposit Rs.7,14,124/- misused by her within one week, and ordered that the Panchayat funds should be drawn by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer until further orders.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge, while leaving it open to the appellant-writ petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of four weeks, and in directing the competent authority to dispose of the same within a period of four weeks thereafter, directed stay of recovery of Rs.7,14,124/- till then. The learned Single Judge observed that, if the appellant-writ petitioner failed to file an appeal within the stipulated period, it was open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law; however, this would not preclude the competent authority from initiating action for recovery of the said amount.

The learned Single Judge has, in fact, been indulgent and, while relegating the appellant to the remedy of preferring an appeal, has directed stay of recovery of the amount allegedly misused by the appellant-writ petitioner of Rs.7,14,124/-. It is not in dispute that, against the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer, an appeal lies to the District Collector. The learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion not to entertain the Writ Petition and to relegate the appellantwrit petitioner to the remedy of preferring such an appeal. Exercise of such discretion, by the learned Single Judge, does not suffer from patent illegality necessitating interference in an intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the letters Patent.

We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order under appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) ____________________ (M. GANGA RAO, J) 25th January, 2018 pnb

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO Writ Appeal No.85 of 2018 Date: 25.1.2018 pnb