IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15389 of 2008 Between: Smt. M. Yadamma W/o Samuel R/o Kuntlaoor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Panchayat Wing, Ranga Reddy Ranga Reddy District 2 K. Prabhakar Reddy S/o Yadagiri Reddy R/o Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not passing orders on the show cause Notice dated 10-06-2008 issued under Section 249-(1) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the panchayat Raj act, 1994 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to follow the procedure contemplated under the A.P. panchayar Raj Act 1994 and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.U.RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 15389 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the first respondent in finalizing the proceedings initiated against the second respondent under Section 249(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner claims to be an elected member of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency-II of Kuntloor village. The material on record shows that a show cause notice was issued to the second respondent on 10-06-2008 calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the post of Sarpanch under Section 249(1) of the Act and for recovery of the misappropriated amount under Section 265 of the Act. Since it is clear that the enquiry has already been initiated, no further decision is necessary by this Court except to direct the first respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the second respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 17-07-2008 Note : Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o KLP