IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 5411 of 2008 Between: Godatha Lakshmi, w/o. Sri Rambabu, R/o. Divili, Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari at Kakinada. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing Rc. No. 3409/A11, dated 23-1-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents herein to drop all further proceedings against the petitioner in this regard. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the Proceedings dated 23.1.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner asserts that she was elected as Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat, Divili, in the elections held in the month of July, 2006. Thereafter, on certain allegations, the 2nd respondent-District Collector issued a show cause notice dated 22.12.2007, for which the petitioner offered her explanation on 4.1.2008. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, called for remarks on her explanation from the Divisional Panchayat Officer. Based on the remarks received from the Divisional Panchayat Officer on 18.1.2008, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 23.1.2008 suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch for a period of three months invoking the powers conferred under Section 269 (6) of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act”). Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that questioning the order, dated 23.1.2008, when she filed a revision on 12.2.2008 before the 1st respondent- Government under Section 264 of the Act along with a petition for stay of suspension of the order, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders so far. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. When once a revision before the Government is pending, it should have passed some order instead of keeping the petitioner in darkness. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent- Government to hear the application seeking suspension of the order dated 23.1.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the order, dated 23.1.2008 shall not be given effect to. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ 14.03.2008 Note: Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs B/o bcj