HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20554 of 2010 Date: August 20, 2010 Between: Smt. Gattu Vani, W/o. Sambasiva Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Sarpanch, Poranki Grampanchayath, R/o.Salipeta, Poranki, Palamaneru Mandal, Krishna District … Petitioner And The District Collector, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, and two others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the in-action of 1st respondent herein in not disposing of the appeal submitted by the petitioner on 05.08.2010 as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to take action on the appeal dated 05.08.2010 forthwith, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” The petitioner herein is the Sarpanch of Poranki Gram Panchayat, Palamaneru Mandal, Krishna District. The second respondent-District Panchayat Officer, Krishna, in exercise of powers under Rule 42(1) of the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj, Village Development and Relief Department, dated 20-01-1995, passed order dated 29-07-2010 in ROC No.990/2010 Pan.3, restricting the petitioner from withdrawing the funds of the Grampanchayat and ordered to draw the funds with the counter-signature of the Divisional Panchayat Officer concerned. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent- District Collector, Krishna on 05-08-2010. It is the case of the petitioner that under Rule 42 of the Rules, the District Panchayat Officer ought to have fixed the period till which the directions issued in the impugned order would operate; but, without doing so, he passed the impugned order. Her grievance is, even though she filed an appeal against the order of the second respondent-District Panchayat Officer, dated 05-08-2010, before the first respondent, the same has not been considered and no orders have been passed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent is not empowered to pass any order under Rule 42 of the Rules without fixing a time limit. But, in view of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05-08-2010, it is not desirable to go into merits of the matter and record a finding. Even according to the petitioner, she filed an appeal against the order dated 29-07-2010 of the second respondent on 05-08-2010 and thus it cannot be said that there is delay on the part of the first respondent in considering the appeal of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent- District Collector to consider the appeal of the petitioner dated 05-08-2010, filed against the order of the second respondent dated 29-07-2010 and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 20, 2010 MRR