IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8412 of 2002 Between: Nadapana Vara Laxmi, W/o. Suryanarayana, R/o. Palakol, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Mandal Parishad, Palakol, West Godavari 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 Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the Proceedings in R.C.No.E.O./84/2002 dt. 8.4.2002 issued by the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Mandal Parishad, Palakol, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and without any power or authority and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The petitioner is a former Sarpanch of Thillapudi Gram Panchayat, West Godavari District. The respondent issued a notice dated 8.4.2002 (impugned in the writ petition), alleging that the petitioner, as the Ex-Person-in-charge of the Panchayat during the period 14.10.2000 to 23.8.2001, was found to have collected house tax and other taxes, but failed to credit the same to the Treasury, though the cashbook records that the amounts had been credited to the Treasury. On verification of the records relating to the cashbook and passbook of the Treasury, it is disclosed that an amount of Rs.93,240/- was not credited to the Treasury. Further the amounts in respect of Receipt Nos. 22, 37 and 82 dated 19.1.2001 and 13.3.2001 and private tap accounts for the years 2000-2001, involving a total amount of Rs.6,150/- were not credited to the Treasury. The records also disclosed vouchers for the expenditure from 1.4.2001 to 23.8.2001 were not handed over to the office of the Gram Panchayat. In the circumstances, the notice stated, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the petitioner should pay Rs.99,390/- to the Thillapudi Gram Panchayat and should handover the vouchers to the Gram Panchayat or else action would be initiated against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner has a plurality of options on such notice. She could have replied to the respondent that she is not liable either because she was not Sarpanch at the relevant time or had credited the amounts to the Treasury and handed over all the vouchers at the time of relief from the office of Sarpanch or any other defences as available. She could also have kept silent and awaited a formal initiation of proceedings under some provision of the Act, as sensitized in the respondent’s notice and thereafter pursued her remedies against such process if initiated. As at present, the notice dated 8.4.2002 issued by the respondent does not cause any prejudice, warranting interdiction by Mandamus. A determination whether the petitioner committed the illegalities or irregularities spelt out in the notice impugned, is inappropriate in this proceedings under Article 226of the Constitution. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 4.4.2008, six (6) years after the institution of the writ petition. It is stated herein that the petitioner is responsible for non-deposit of the amounts in the Treasury. The answering respondent asserts availability of power under Section 44 of the Act, for issuance of the notice under challenge. In the light of the fact that the impugned notice per se does not initiate any coercive processes against the petitioner for the non- payment of the amounts spelt out in the notice or the irregularities mentioned therein and since the petitioner has ample opportunities to respond to the notice on merits, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interdict what is merely a notice. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to respond to the notice and if any specific action is initiated against her, to pursue her remedies thereagainst. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 4.4.2008 cvm