K.Rameshwara Rao v. -

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.34714 OF 2015 DATED:6-11-2015 Between:

Korada Rameshwara Rao ... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1, 3 and 4: A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj (AP) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2: A.G.P. for Revenue (AP)

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc. No.1964/2014 A3, dt.10.4.2015, of respondent No.3 whereby while issuing show cause notice to the petitioner as to why restrictions on withdrawal of Gram Panchayat funds shall not be imposed, he has restrained the petitioner from withdrawing moneys from the funds relating to Sub-Treasury, Postal, and banks, belonging to the Gram Panchayat concerned.

Under Rule 42(1) of the Rules relating to Certain Taxes & Lodging of Moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and Payment of Money from the Gram Panchayat Fund (for short, 'the Rules'), the District Panchayat Officer is empowered to place restrictions on the power of any Sarpanch from drawing moneys of the Gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order. Before passing any such order, he shall give an opportunity of making representation to the Sarpanch concerned. However, under the proviso thereof, the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the Sarpanch not to draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat pending exercise of power under sub-rule (1). In the light of the proviso referred to above, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice is not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the very fact that respondent No.3 has not initiated enquiry and passed a final order so far shows that he has passed the impugned order due to political considerations. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj (AP) submitted that respondent No.3 has appointed respondent No.4 as enquiry officer and immediately on receipt of the enquiry report, he will pass a final order under Rule 42(1) of the Rules.

In the light of the above submissions, respondent No.4 is directed to complete the enquiry and submit his report to respondent No.3 within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Within one month thereafter, respondent No.3 shall issue notice to the petitioner, supply the enquiry report and call for explanation from him and within one month from the date of receipt of such explanation from the petitioner, he shall pass a final order.

Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.44602 of 2015 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

06-11-2015 bnr