IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21089 of 2010 Between: M. Raghunaik, S/o. Sri Nagu Naik, aged about 40 years, R/o.R.M.Thanda Village, Occ: Sarpanch, Yellamanda Grampanchayat, Erravaripalem Mandal, Chittoor District. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District, and two others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: G.P., Panchayatraj & Rural Development Counsel for respondent No.3: Mr. M. Prabhakar Rao The court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring proceedings Rc.No.1128/1/2010-A5 (Pan), dated 28-07- 2010, issued by the second respondent-District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Rule 42 of A.P. Grampanchayat Rules, 1994 framed under the A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’). The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Yellamanda Grampanchayat, Erravaripalem Mandal, Chittoor District in the year 2007. While so, the second respondent herein issued a show-cause notice dated 13- 05-2010 to the petitioner to show cause as to why powers should not be exercised for withdrawal of his cheque power under Rule 42(1) of the Rules, framed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20-01-1995. It is stated that the petitioner has filed his explanation to the said notice. While things stood thus, on the ground that the petitioner has not responded to the notice dated 07-06-2010, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings instructing the petitioner to deposit the misappropriated amount of Rs.3,63,990/-, in default appropriate action will be taken under Section 249(1) of the Act. In the very same proceedings, withdrawal of the cheque power of the petitioner has been ordered in exercise of powers under Rule 42(1) of the said Rules. Primarily, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are issued without considering his explanation which he has submitted in response to the show-cause notice dated 13-05-2010 issued to him. It is stated that no notice dated 07-06-2010 was served on him; as such there was no occasion to file any explanation with reference to the said notice, which is referred at reference No.3 in the impugned proceedings. The matter was adjourned on the last occasion so as to enable the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents to place before this court the notice dated 07-06-2010 referred to in the impugned proceedings. I have perused the notice dated 07-06-2010 referred to in the impugned proceedings. Although in the impugned proceedings, a reference is made to the notice dated 13-05-2010 and the explanation filed by the petitioner to the said notice, it appears that the impugned proceedings is issued withholding the cheque power of the petitioner mainly on the ground that he did not respond to the notice dated 07-06-2010. As there is no evidence in proof of service of notice dated 07-06-2010 on the petitioner and in view of the allegations of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to treat the notice dated 28-07-2010 as a fresh notice under Rule 42(1) of the afore-stated Rules. The petitioner is permitted to file his explanation to the said notice within a period of three weeks from today. On filing such explanation, the second respondent-District Panchayat Officer shall consider the said explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within three weeks thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 30, 2010 N.B. Issue C.C. in 3 days B.O. MRR