HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.Nos.13787, 14477 & 17454 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Having regard to the short submission of Sri M.V.Raja Raam, learned counsel for the petitioners and after hearing the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, these writ petitions are disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are ward members of Telikicherla Gram Panchayat, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioner in W.P.No.13787 of 2011 is the Upa Sarpanch besides being a member of the said Panchayat. 3. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders of the 1st respondent-State Government, dated 20-04-2011 in Memo No.8029/Pts.II/A1/2011-1, whereunder, the state Government has granted interim orders staying the orders dated 30-03-2011 in Proceedings No.248/2010/A-1 (Pts), passed by the District Collector (PW), West Godavari, on an appeal filed by one Bonam Bhagvannarayana, who is the 5th respondent in W.P.No.13787 of 2011 and 4th respondent in W.P.Nos.14477 and 17454 of 2011. In two of the writ petitions W.P.Nos.14477 and 17454 of 2011, consequential orders, dated 13-05-2011, of the 3rd respondent, are also impugned. 4. Bhagvannarayana, the 5th respondent in W.P.No.13787 of 2011, was served with a show cause notice, dated 30-03-2011 alleging that he had committed certain irregularities while discharging the functions as Sarpanch. He was called upon to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from the office under Section 249 (1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1984 (for brevity ‘the Act’). In the meanwhile, action was also initiated by issuing a show cause notice for keeping him under suspension under the provisions of Section 249 (6) of the Act. After receiving the explanation, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 30-03-2011 placing him under suspension for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, Bhagvannarayana preferred a petition which is stated to be in the form of ‘appeal’. The State Government, on entertaining the said appeal, by means of the impugned order dated 20-04-2011, granted interim orders staying the operation of the orders dated 30-03-2011. In consequence of the said orders of the State Government, the District Collector (Panchayat Raj Wing), West Godavari District, Eluru, who is the 4th respondent in W.P.No.13787 of 2011 and 3rd respondent in W.P.Nos.14477 and 17454 of 2011, issued orders dated 13-05-2011, restoring the cheque drawing powers of Bhagvannarayana. Aggrieved by these orders, these writ petitions have been filed. 5. Various contentions have been urged. The learned counsel Sri M.Raja Raam submits that an order suspending Bhagvannarayana from the office under Section 249 (6) of the Act is not appealable and hence, the State Government is not within its jurisdiction to entertain the same. The learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Yerneni Kusuma Vs. Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Others[1]. The learned counsel further submits that the State Government had no valid material before it before passing the impugned order and in a matter which was thoroughly considered by the District Collector with a prima facie finding that Bhagvannarayana has committed serious irregularities, the Government is not justified in staying the operation of the said order. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, however, submits that even though no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 249 (6) of the Act, the State Government is competent to entertain the same as a revision under Section 264 of the Act. The State Government, therefore, cannot be said to be incompetent to receive an application and treat the appeal filed by Bhagvannarayana as a revision. 7. I am not inclined to decide the aforesaid contentions. Admittedly, the petition filed by Bhagvannarayana is pending consideration before the State Government. The petitioners, if aggrieved, ought to have approached the State Government by filing appropriate applications and seek appropriate reliefs. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that the petitioners be permitted to file appropriate applications seeking their impleadment and other appropriate orders and the contentions raised in these writ petitions be kept open to be urged in the petition pending before the State Government. 9. In view of the said submissions, these writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the State Government by making appropriate applications in the appeal said to have been filed by Bhagvannarayana and seek appropriate orders. The petitioners are also at liberty to urge all the contentions including those raised in these writ petitions. The petitioners may file their applications within a period of one week from today and the said applications may be taken up for consideration within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said applications, after due notice to Bhagvannarayana. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 01-07-2011 Kvr [1] 2010 (5) A.L.T. 1