THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.12688 OF 2011 BETWEEN: Bhukya Nehru Nayak …. PETITIONER And 1. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri K.R. Prabhakar Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development. The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri K.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Mahabubabad Gram Panchayat, Mahabubabad Mandal, Warangal District. He has filed this Writ Petition assailing the show cause notice Rc.No.3205/2010/A4, dated 15.04.2011 issued under Section 249 (1) of A.P. Panchayat Raj, Act, 1994 (Act) calling his explanation as regards certain allegations enumerated therein. As a general rule this Court does not entertain a Writ Petition questioning the legality of a show cause notice, except in cases of lack of jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Special Director v. Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse [1] observed as follows : “This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show- cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court………” In the instant case, the petitioner has been served with the impugned show cause notice alleging; (i) issue of tender notification for the execution of 137 works without obtaining technical sanction from the Deputy Executive Engineer and preparation of estimates by the concerned Assistant Engineer; (ii) after publication of a news item in the Eenadu daily newspaper on 23-09-2010 canceling the tenders called for on 14-09-2010 in respect of 137 works assigning technical reasons; (iii) calling for tenders for 137 works without allotting funds in the approved budget for the year 2010-11, even though the 20% of funds allotted for the works of roads and bridges; and (iv) though there was a treasury reserve of Rs.45,53,439/- as on 30-08-2010 calling for tenders for execution of 137 works worth Rs.1,85,10,000/-. On the aforesaid allegations that he failed to observe the regulations in the matters relating to road works, the petitioner has been called upon to submit his explanation as to why he shall not be removed from the office under Section 249 (1) of the Act. The learned senior counsel would challenge the notice on the ground that even if the allegations in the show cause notice are taken on their face value, do not warrant the proposed action against the petitioner. The counsel would contend that the petitioner did not issue any tender notification and in fact he is no way responsible either to issue tender notification or to obtain estimates/technical sanctions from the competent authority. It is contended that such duties and the responsibility solely rests on the Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner is also not responsible for withdrawal of the tender notification as it has been done by the Panchayat Secretary. He would also contend that annual budge for the year 2010-11 was approved by the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 14-12-2009 and the same was approved by the District Panchayat Officer by proceedings dated 07-01-2010. He would therefore contend that the allegations made in the show cause notice are unsustainable and do not make out a case for removal of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Rule 2 of A.P. Gram Panchayat (Invitation and Acceptance of tenders for works and purchases) Rules, 2000 issued in G.O.Ms.No.441 PR & RD (Rules) Department dated 10-2-2002 to show that it is the duty of the Panchayat Secretary to invite tenders. The purport of the argument is that if the responsibility solely rests on the Panchayat Secretary as per the said rule, any commission and omission of issuing the tender notification cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that the petitioner cannot seek to throw the blame entirely on the Panchayat Secretary. He would submit that it is the duty of the Sarpanch to supervise the work of the Secretary, as he is vested with powers to exercise administrative control over him by virtue of the powers vested in him in Section 25 and 248 of the Act. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the allegations (iii) and (iv) are directly attributable to the petitioner himself, therefore the second respondent is entitled to call for explanation for appropriate action in the matter. As mentioned above, the petitioner would seek to contend that the A.P. Gram Panchayat (Invitation and Acceptance of tenders for works and purchases) Rules, 2000 issued in G.O.Ms.No.441 PR & RD (Rules) Department dated 10-2-2002 empower only Panchayat Secretary to call for the tenders. But a perusal of the tender notification issued in the newspaper shows that it has been issued not only by the Panchayat Secretary but also by the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore under an obligation to explain his complicity in issuing the said tender notification. Similarly as regards the allegations (iii) and (iv) he is under an obligation to explain why tender was called without allotting funds in the approved budget and without there being no sufficient funds for execution of 137 works. These facts being jurisdictional facts, an enquiry into the said allegations is necessary to find out whether the petitioner is responsible or not. Indisputably, Section 249 vests power in the Collector or as the case may be the Government to remove the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, President or Vice-President or as the case may be Chair Person or Vice-Chair Person from office if in the opinion of the District Collector or the Government such office holder is guilty of the commissions and omissions mentioned therein. In the light of the said provisions, the impugned show cause notice does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction, since it has been issued by the Collector who is vested with the power, therefore challenge to the show cause notice at the threshold is not tenable. As observed by the Apex Court in the judgment cited above that whether the impugned show cause notice is founded on any legal premise can also be urged by the petitioner by submitting his explanation and such issue also can be adjudicated by the authority. The petitioner is therefore at liberty to submit explanation to the impugned show cause notice raising all the grounds including those urged in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to admit the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. -06-2011. Js/Skmr [1] (2004) 3 SCC 440