IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14616 of 2010 Between: Cherukupalli Srinivasa Reddy. ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Y.G. Krishna Murthy Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14616 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is Upa-Sarpanch of Anikalapalli Village, C.S. Puram Mandal, Prakasam District, filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.1 in considering his representations dated 12.04.2010 and 13.06.2010 made for taking appropriate action against respondent No.5 for the alleged misuse of Gram Panchayat funds. I have heard Sri Y.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.5. In his affidavit, the petitioner has alleged that respondent No.5, who is the Sarpanch, has been misappropriating the Gram Panchayat funds to the tune of several lakhs of rupees. As being Upa-Sarpanch, the petitioner has allegedly made the abovementioned two representations to respondent No.1 for taking appropriate disciplinary action against respondent No.5. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far no action has been taken thereon. Under Section 249 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, respondent No.1 is vested with the power of initiating appropriate proceedings for removal of the Sarpanch, if he is found guilty of the commissions and omissions of the nature, which are enumerated in the said provision. In order to ensure transparent and corruption free administration, it is the duty of respondent No.1 to enquire into the representations whenever serious allegations are made against the Sarpanches or Upa-Sarpanches. As the representations made by the petitioner disclose serious allegations of commissions and omissions by respondent No.5, I do not find any justification for respondent No.1 not to respond to the said representations and initiate appropriate action, if he is prima facie satisfied that the allegations are supported by proper material. No counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents to justify the inaction. In the light of the above facts, respondent No.1 is directed to consider and take appropriate action on the representations of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.18382 and 28655 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.10.2010 ES