IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12050 of 2010 Between: Chelluboyina Nagamani ..... Petitioner AND Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Special Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Siva Bhami Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri G. Elisha Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri K. Ram Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12050 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 25.05.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby it has rejected the petitioner’s application for staying the operation of order dated 06.05.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby he has removed the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that on 27.05.2010, this Court, while ordering notice before admission, has granted interim suspension of the order of respondent No.2. At the hearing, it has been conceded by all the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that on the strength of the interim order, the petitioner is being continued as Sarpanch. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 shows that it has failed to give any reasons whatsoever while rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay. Respondent No.1, while dealing with the statutory remedies availed by the litigants, exercises quasi judicial power. As the orders passed rejecting the reliefs claimed by the litigants result in causing adverse consequences, it is incumbent upon the quasi judicial authorities to spell out the reasons. As the impugned order does not contain any such reasons, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. As the petitioner is being continued as Sarpanch on the strength of the interim order, he shall be continued as such till the disposal of the appeal filed by him by respondent No.1. Sri K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel representing the impleaded respondent, submitted that respondent No.1 may be directed to dispose of the appeal field by the petitioner in a time bound manner. In view of this request, respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal field by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the petitioner and other interested parties, if any. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.15168 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.11.2010 ES