IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1496 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/09/2008 in WP NO : 21798 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Mandava Lakshmi Jyothi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Maddipadu Mandal Parishad, R/o. Basavannapalem, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Panchayat Bhawan, Hyderguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Ongole Zilla Praja Parishad, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Mandal parishad Development Officer, Maddipadu Mandal Parishad, Maddipadu, Prakasam District. 4 The Maddipadu Mandal Parishad, Maddipadu, Prakasam District, Rep. by its President. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1496 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri Kurra Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the ﬁrst respondent and Sri M.Prabhakar Rao, appearing for respondents 2 to 4, and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.21798 of 2008. In the said writ petition, the appellant, who being a member of Maddipadu Mandal Parishad of Prakasam District, sought a writ of Mandamus, inter alia, seeking to declare the action on the part of respondent No.3 in conducting a special meeting on 12.09.2008 and passing the resolution, dated 12.09.2008, which is contrary to the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.218, dated 31.03.1995, as illegal and arbitrary. The grievance of the appellant is that though in the earlier meeting held on 02.08.2008, the very same agenda and very same issues were taken up, considered and decisions were taken, however, in the next meeting on 12.09.2008, once again the very same questions, issues and aspects were taken up for consideration and resolution is sought to be passed, which is quite in the teeth of the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 31.03.1995. Hence, the writ appeal. Learned Single Judge taking into consideration the respective submissions of both sides did not ﬁnd in favour of the plea raised on behalf of the appellant mainly on the ground that no such objection was raised by the appellant at the initial stage itself and further, it would only amount to procedural hurdles, without having any eﬀect on the decision, as such and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in fact as against the said decisions taken on 12.09.2008, the appellant had already submitted representation to the third respondent, and also sent copies to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as well, questioning the correctness of said decisions or even taking up the very same issues, which were already resolved, once again, however, the same was not yet been considered and disposed of. At this juncture, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that having regard to the availability of remedy of appeal to the appellant under Section 246 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short ‘the Act’), the same can as well be pursued rather than raising all the questions in the writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to which, of course, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not express any objection. In view of the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate that the said representation ﬁled by the appellant on 12.09.2008 before the third respondent may be treated as an appeal under Section 246 of the Act and be referred to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for consideration on merits and for its disposal, in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ appeal is disposed of, directing the third respondent to refer the said representation, dated 12.09.2008, made by the appellant to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to be treated as an appeal and dispose of the same on merits, after giving notice and opportunity to both the parties. No order as to costs. ___________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 15.11.2008 Note: Issue CC in three days. B/o dr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Panchayat Bhawan, Hyderguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, Ongole Zilla Praja Parishad, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Mandal parishad Development Officer, Maddipadu Mandal Parishad, Maddipadu, Prakasam District. 4 The Maddipadu Mandal Parishad, Maddipadu, Prakasam District, Rep. by its President. 4 2 CCS to Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, (OUT) 5 2CD copies