THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7627 of 2011 Date:07.04.2011 Between: M.Shankaraiah ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside G.O.Rt.No.263, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS.II) Department, dated 22.02.2011 of respondent No.1, whereby it has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner confirming the proceedings dated 25.09.2010 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Jammikunta Gram Panchayat. By proceedings dated 25.09.2010, respondent No.2 has suspended the petitioner on certain allegations of commissions and omissions in exercise of his powers under Section 249 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No.1. As no order of stay was granted in the said revision petition, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28390 of 2010. As the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the order of respondent No.2 pending revision, the petitioner filed W.A.No.921 of 2010, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 24.11.2010 suspending the order of respondent No.2 with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision petition. Accordingly, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned G.O., whereby he has confirmed the order of respondent No.2. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his submissions on merits. In my opinion, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate on the legality or validity of the order of respondent No.2, which was confirmed in revision petition by respondent No.1, because under Section 249(6) of the Act, the order passed by respondent No.2 will not be valid after three months and it is only respondent No.1 which is competent to extend the order of suspension beyond the period of three months for a period not exceeding six months from the date of communication of the order of suspension. At the hearing, it is not disputed that even after excluding the period of interception by this Court, the petitioner has suffered the order of suspension for more than three months and respondent No.1 has not extended the order of suspension passed by respondent No.2 even though it has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. In view of these uncontroverted facts, the order dated 25.09.2010 passed by respondent No.2 has ceased to be in force and the petitioner is accordingly entitled to be restored to the office forthwith. This order, however, does not preclude respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from taking appropriate action for the alleged irregularities against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 249(1) of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9482 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th April, 2011 GHN