HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1051 OF 2011 Between: Yalamanchili Venkata Babu Rajendra Prasad ………….Appellant AND State of Andhra Pradesh and three others ………….Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is directed against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge, who disposed of several WPMPs, which have been moved in various writ petitions, by his common order dated 13th September 2011. The relevant facts are: The writ petitioners were all elected as Surpanches and Upa-Sarpanchas of various Gram Panchayats during the election that was taken in the year 2006. Their term of office of five years expired by 22.8.2011, by which date, elections to the Gram Panchayat/ Local Bodies could not be conducted. Hence, the State Government exercised the power available in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 143 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and passed orders enabling the District Collectors to appoint Special Officers to various Gram Panchayats/Group of Gram Panchayats with effect from 23.8.201. Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contend that the State has failed to conduct the elections to the various Gram Panchyats in time, so that new body of Office Bearers to various Gram Panchayats could not have been put in office by the end of tenure of the previous elected bodies. It is further contended that to the extent possible the principle of self-governance could have been honoured and adhered to by the State instead of allowing the Government Officials from being appointed as Special Officers. The learned counsel for the appellant would also contended that when the provision enables appointment of a Special Officer or a person in-charge or a committee of persons-in-charge, the State should have exercised the discretion prematurely by appointing a Committee of persons- in-charge until the Members and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayats are elected and they assume office. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that on an earlier occasion the State Government has exercised the discretion properly through the orders passed by it in G.O.Ms.No. 318 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Election) Department dated 17.10.2000, whereby the District Collectors were authorized to appoint Committee of persons-in-charge comprising of Sarpanch and Members of the respective Gram Panchayats. Failure to repeat a similar exercise amounts to acting in contravention of the democratic principles of self- governance but the very spirit of self-governance had gross route levels. Sub-Section (3) of Section 143 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, henceforth referred to as Act, confers discretion on the State in choosing either a Special Officer or a Person in-charge or a Committee of Persons-in- charge, who should be entrusted with the task of exercising the powers and functions of Gram Panchayats, till such time, the newly elected Sarpanch and Members of the Gram Panchayat assume office. In the counter affidavit several reasons have been assigned as to why the State has chosen the appointment of Special Officers instead of Committee of Persons-in- charge. We have carefully perused the reasons. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that choosing one instead of the other amongst the choices left, would amount to derogation of the principles or the spirit behind the democratic principles. Self-Governance at the grass root level is the best way of governance. The local body will be alive to the requirements and special needs of the Gram Panchayats concerned. It would also be alive to its revenue and the exact expenditure, therefore, proper and planned development could be undertaken by them. But however, when once elected body had completed its tenure of five years, there is no right of any manner for them to continue to govern the Gram Panchayats/ Local Bodies. Some times allowing them to continue to govern the local body might be counter productive. If they have not properly ruled and administered the local body during their full term/ tenure of five years, the mal-administration cannot be continued any further by choosing them as Committee of persons-in-charge. Whereas, if a Special Officer is appointed, he being a Civil Servant of the State he becomes surely answerable both for his acts and also for his failures. Hence, proper governance can be reasonably expected from him. The fact that the Government servants are not available in good numbers cannot dilute their accountability when they were entrusted with the task of administering the local body concerned. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Choice of the State in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 143 of the Act cannot be interdicted. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 07.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.