THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE WRIT PETITION No. 15416 Of 2009 Between: Meddala Aradhana Sudhakar …Petitioner A N D The Governent of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 15416 Of 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 11-8-2009. Counter affidavit had been filed by the 2nd Respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the order dated 18-7-2009 in Proceedings No. A6/636/09-Pan passed by the 2nd Respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. It is stated that the petitioner was Sarpanch of Rudravaram Grampanchayat and a first show cause notice was issued on 17-2- 2009 by the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner indulged in several irregularities. The petitioner submitted her explanation dated 2-3-2009 to the first show cause notice. The second show cause notice was issued on 22-5-2009 and the impugned order was passed on 18-7-2009 by the 2nd respondent. 4. Counter affidavit in detail had been filed denying several averments. It is stated that though the show cause notice, dated 22-5- 2009 was duly served on the petitioner, but the petitioner had not submitted any explanation to the second show cause notice. It is also further stated that the misappropriation was proved by various enquiries cast by the 2nd respondent and several further details had been specified and Section 249(6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 also had been referred to. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader for Panchayath Raj would contend that the first show cause notice is something different from the second show cause notice and when no explanation had been submitted to the second show cause notice, the mere fact that in the impugned order certain further additional amounts had been specified would not seriously alter the situation. Hence, it cannot be said that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. However, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would contend that whatever the reasons may be, when the show cause notice had been served on the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted the explanation and it may be that the petitioner was under the wrong impression that inasmuch as already an explanation had been submitted to the first show cause notice, there may not be any necessity of submitting further explanation. The counsel also pointed out that in the second show cause notice some additional amounts had been specified. Further, even in the impugned order further amounts had been specified in relation to thereby. Since the petitioner was not put on any notice at all calling for any explanation whatsoever, in that view of the matter also, the impugned order passed on 18-7- 2009 is in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits in relation to thereof, it is however stated that the Upa-Sarpanch already had taken charge, the same is recorded. This Court has given a careful consideration to the contents of the first show cause notice and the contents of second show cause notice as well and the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the first show cause notice. In the contents of second show cause notice it is clear that certain additional amounts had been specified. It is nodoubt true that no explanation had been submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice. 8. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, dated 18-7- 2009 the same specified certain additional amounts as well. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was not put on notice relating to these aspects. 9. In the light of the same, let the second respondent issue a further show cause notice specifying all the further amounts specified in the impugned order, dated 18-7-2009 within a period of two weeks and let the petitioner submits her explanation within two weeks thereafter and let the second respondent consider such explanation and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is needless to say inasmuch as Upa-Sarpanch already had taken charge, status quo obtaining as on today be maintained till the appropriate decision is taken by the 2nd respondent in this regard. 10. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly, with the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 27th August, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 15416 Of 2009 27th August, 2009.