THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26195 OF 2006 DATED 28TH FEBRUARY, 2011 BETWEEN Chintakayala Mutyalu …Petitioners And The District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam District and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26195 OF 2006 ORDER: The Sarpanch of Mutyalammapalem Village, Venkatapathipalem, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the petitioner herein, assails the order-cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006 passed by the District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam District, prohibiting him from dealing with the Gram Panchayat’s funds, including its accounts with the Sub-Treasury and the Postal Savings Bank. This Court, by order dated 27.12.2006, granted interim suspension of the order under challenge for a period of four weeks. Relevant to note, there was no extension of the said order thereafter. A reading of the order-cum-show cause notice under challenge reflects that owing to the arrest and remand of the petitioner in connection with certain irregularities allegedly committed during the election, the District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam, in exercise of the powers vested in him under the first proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief (Pts-III) Department, dated 20.01.1995, called upon the petitioner to show cause within 15 days as to why he should not be prohibited from operating the funds of the Gram Panchayat. Pending passing of final orders under the said sub-rule, the District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam, directed the petitioner not to draw the monies of the Gram Panchayat lodged in the Sub-Treasury, Postal Savings Bank or from any other sources. The District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam, filed his counter in February, 2007 stating that the petitioner was arrested in connection with an election dispute and was remanded to judicial custody. Reference was made to the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during his previous tenure as the Upa-Sarpanch of the Village from 1995-2000. The District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam, further stated that after the issuance of the impugned order-cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, under Rule 42(2) of the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20.01.1995 and that the same was pending consideration. It is pertinent to note that the District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam, sought to rely upon new grounds with regard to the petitioner’s past antecedents, which do not find mention in the impugned order-cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006. The same is impermissible in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER[1]. The impugned order-cum-show cause notice must stand or fall on its own and cannot be supplemented by way of the averments in the counter filed in this case. The scheme of Rule 42(1) of the Rules frames in G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20.01.1995, reflects that for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, the District Panchayat Officer is empowered to prohibit the Sarpanch from drawing the monies of the Gram Panchayat for a specified period. The first proviso stipulates that this exercise must be preceded by an opportunity being afforded to the Sarpanch of the Panchayat to make his representation. The second proviso however entitles the District Panchayat Officer to pass an interim direction, pending the final order, to suspend the Sarpanch’s powers to draw monies of the Gram Panchayat. The impugned order-cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006 is in exercise of the power under the second proviso to Rule 42(1) of the aforestated Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the order- cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006 on 08.12.2006. He also filed an appeal before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, against the suspension of his cheque powers, under the impugned order-cum- show cause notice dated 04.12.2006, in December, 2006 itself. As stated earlier, the interim order granted by this Court was limited to a period of three weeks, which was not extended thereafter. In spite of the same, the authorities did not choose to take any further action in the matter, be it pursuant to the order-cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006 or in the appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 42(2) of the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20.01.1995. There is no explanation forthcoming as to the inaction on the part of the authorities in this regard. Having allowed the matter to stagnate for well over four years in spite of there being no stay orders from this Court, it is no longer open to the respondent authorities to act upon the impugned order- cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006 or continue with the interim suspension of the petitioner’s cheque powers. The matter has become stale owing to the continued inaction on the part of the authorities themselves. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order-cum-show cause notice dated 04.12.2006 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 28TH FEBRUARY, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] (1978) 1 SCC 405 = AIR 1978 SC 851