THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20375 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Pydivada Agraharam Village of Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on 6.8.2006. The District Panchayat Officer, the 1st respondent herein, issued an order dated 5.6.2008, in exercise of power under Rule 42 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 20.1.1995, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be prohibited from operating the funds of the said Grampanchayat. Pending issuance of further orders, the 1st respondent invoked the second proviso to Rule 42, and passed an interim order, restraining the petitioner from drawing monies by the Grampanchayat. The order, insofar as it prohibits the petitioner from operating the funds of the Grampanchayat, is challenged. Sri K. Manik Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the power conferred upon the 1st respondent, under Rule 42, is to the effect that he can restrain a Sarpanch from operating the funds of the Panchayat for a speciﬁc period, and that being the case, the interim measure cannot be permitted to become a permanent or regular feature. He places reliance upon the judgment of this court in SOMAGANI VENKATA SUBBAMMA v. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KRISHNA DISTRICT[1]. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has already submitted explanation and he has to await the ﬁnal orders to be passed by the 1st respondent. Rule 42 confers almost extraordinary powers on the 1st respondent. The provision reads as under: “42. (1) The District Panchayat Oﬃcer concerned may, for suﬃcient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any executive authority from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order: Provided that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the executive authority concerned Provided further that the District Panchayat Oﬃcer may issue an interim direction to the executive authority not to draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat pending the exercise of this power under this sub-rule.” (rest of the rule is not necessary) From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that even as an outcome of exercise of power under the provision, the 1st respondent can prohibit the operation of funds of the Grampanchayat, for a stipulated period. It is no doubt true that the power to pass such an interim direction is also conferred upon the 1st respondent. The interim measure, however, cannot be permitted to be a regular one. It is not out of place to mention that whenever minor discrepancies are noticed, vis-à-vis a Sarpanch, the District Collector is conferred with the power to place him under suspension, for a period not exceeding three months, under Sub-section (6) of Section 249 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. On the same lines, the 1st respondent can restrict the cheque drawing powers of a Sarapnch, for a period akin to that. The interim measure is in force, for the past more than three months. It has exceeded the period, for which the powers could have been restricted even as a ﬁnal measure. Therefore, the order, insofar as it prohibited the petitioner from operating the funds of the Grampanchayat, cannot be permitted to remain in force. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, setting aside that part of the order, which prohibits the petitioner from operating the funds of the Panchayat. It is, however, left open to the 1st respondent to pass ﬁnal orders, in pursuance of the impugned notice, after taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ 18th September 2008 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) PAN [1] 2006(5) ALT 26