IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT :PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18989 of 2008 Between: Smt. C. Saritha Badrinarayana Goud, W/o. Sri Badrinarayana Goud, Sarpanch, Pocharam Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... Petitioner AND 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Rangareddy District, at Khairatabad, Hyerabad. 2 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rangareddy District, Nampaly, Hyderabad. 3 B. Venkatesh Goud, S/o. Lingamaiah, Upa Sarpanch, Pocharam G.P. Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy 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 may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order in file No. 15/2008- B1 (Panchayat) dated 29-8-2008 issued by the Respondent No. 1 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 18463/2008 dated 26-8-2008; The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI VIJAY KUMAR HERUR, Advocate for the Petitioner, Govt. Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents 1 and 2 and of Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, Advocate for the respondent No.3, the Court made the following: ORDER: Learned Govt. Pleader for Panchayat Raj takes notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Challa Dhanunjaya had filed caveat for respondent No.3. Both of them seek time till next Friday to file counter affidavit. Prima facie, it is evident that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, in his proceedings dated 20-8-2008, directed the petitioner to handover the charge to the 3rd respondent. The occasion far the 3rd respondent to assume charge directly would have arisen, if only he approached the petitioner for handing over the charge and she refused, and thereafter, the 1st respondent had issued any revised order, in the context of handing over the charge. Such is not the case here. This court directed the parties to maintain status quo, as on 26-8-2008. The so called charge said to have been assured by the 3rd respondent, on his own accord, on 22-8-2008. Cannot be, prima facie, recognized in law. The petitioner shall be entitled to function as Sarpanch till next Friday i.e. 12-9-2008. It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall not take any policy decision, or handle finances of the Gram Panchayat. Post on 12-09-2008. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1. The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Rangareddy District, at Khairatabad, Hyerabad. 2. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rangareddy District, Nampaly, Hyderabad. 3. B. Venkatesh Goud, S/o. Lingamaiah, Upa Sarpanch, Pocharam G.P. Ghatkesar Mandal, Rangareddy District. ( 1 to 3 by RPAD) 4. 2 CCs to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj, High court of A.P.Hyd.(O.UT) 5. One C.C.to Vijay Kumar Herur, Advocate. (OPUC) 6. one spare copy. HIGH COURT LNR.J DTED 2-09-2008 POST ON 12-09-2008 ORDER W.P.NO. 18989 OF 2008 DIRECTION Bsr Dt. 6-9-2008 HIGH COURT LNR.J DTED 2-09-2008 POST ON 12-09-2008 ORDER W.P.NO. 18989 OF 2008 DIRECTION