IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21507 of 2007 Between: Munagapaka Gram panchayat, rep.by its Sarpanch Mrs.Adari Sarojini, W/o.Sri A.V.Satayanarayana Munagapaka Post & Mandal Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND The District Panchayat officer, Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling for the records leading up to and inclusive of the proceedings of the respondent herein in Rc.No.1020/2007-A3 dated 27.9.2007 and quash the same by issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari as the said order was passed behind back of the petitioner relying upon the statement of panchayat secretary, Munagapaka Gram panchayat, Munagapaka post dated 26.9.2007 without supplying a copy to the petitioner as the same is being illegal, unjust arbitrary, and violative of Articles, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Munagapaka Gram Panchayat. The District Panchayat Oﬃcer, Maharanipeta, the respondent, initiated proceedings against her under Rule 42 of the Rules published in G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995. It was alleged that the petitioner has misused funds, which she was required to explain as to why her cheque drawing powers should not be removed. Pending such exercise, the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner were suspended temporarily vide order, dated 20.06.2007. The petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.17625 of 2007, complaining that no orders have been passed, even after submitting the explanation. This Court disposed of the writ petition through orders, dated 21.08.2007, directing the District Panchayat Oﬃcer to consider the representation of the petitioner within one week and take necessary steps. Stating to be in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondent issued proceedings, dated 27.09.2007, observing that the explanation of the petitioner is rejected. The petitioner complains that on the strength of the impugned order, her cheque drawing powers are taken away and the impugned order is contrary to the Rules. Though more than one year had elapsed, the respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Rule 42 of the Rules confers powers upon the respondent to pass appropriate orders against a Sarpanch, removing the cheque drawing powers, in case the allegations made against the Sarpanch are proved. Powers are also conferred upon the respondent to issue interim directions not to draw money of the Gram Panchayat. After receipt of proceedings, dated 20.06.2007, the petitioner submitted her explanation. When nothing was forthcoming, she approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.17625 of 2007. The writ petition, in turn, was disposed of on 21.08.2007. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that, except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the respondent did not indicate any course of action. It needs to be noticed that Rule 42 of the Rules by itself does not stipulate any deﬁnite course of action. Discretion is conferred upon the respondent to prohibit the Sarpanch from drawing monies “for such period as may be speciﬁed in the order”. Therefore, ﬁrstly, there must be a direction, as regards the prohibition on drawing of monies; and secondly, the period during which such prohibition operates, must be mentioned. None of these ingredients are present in the impugned order. Further, it is not as if the impugned order is only a communication of an order, which has already been passed. No reference is made to such order. The result is that it does not conform to, or accord with, Rule 42 of the Rules. Hence, the Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.29.10.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ