THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26487 of 2010 DT.26.10.2010 Between: Lanka Raja Reddy … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Special Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Surender Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 20.10.2010, passed by respondent No.2, whereby he has reinstated respondent No.5 into the post of Sarpanch of Chanda-T Gram Panchayat, Adilabad Mandal and District. The petitioner is Upa-Sarpanch and In-charge Sarpanch of the above-mentioned Gram Panchayat. He was kept In-charge as a consequence of order, dated 11.06.2010, passed by respondent No.2 placing respondent No.5, the regular Sarpanch, under suspension in exercise of power under Section 249(6) of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), for a period of three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 filed a revision before respondent No.1. However, by efflux of time, the order of suspension passed by respondent No.2 ceased to be in force. Evidently, respondent No.1, through its memo, dated 05.10.2010, communicated its disinclination to extend the order of suspension. Consequently, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order reinstating respondent No.5 into the post of Sarpanch with immediate effect. Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondent No.2 has committed impropriety in ordering reinstatement of respondent No.5 even while the revision filed before respondent No.1 is pending. I find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel. A perusal of the suspension order passed by respondent No.2 shows that the same was passed for a period of three months. Under Section 249(6) of the Act, respondent No.2 is empowered to suspend the Sarpanch etc. for a period not exceeding three months. Under second proviso to sub-section (6), the Government alone is competent to extend the period of suspension for a further period not exceeding three months. In the instant case, as respondent No.1 did not feel inclined to extend the suspension order, respondent No.2 had no other option except to order reinstatement of respondent No.5. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33823 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 26.10.2010. VGB