IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18102 of 2009 Between: Smt. Battipalli Ramchandramma, W/o. Sri Rangaiah, (Under Removal) Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Government of A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned orders issued by the respondent No. 2 in his proceedings No. 1292/09-B1 (Pts)-1 dated 7-8-2009 in removing the petitioner from the Sarpanch of the Nelamarri Gram Panchayat, Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District, and passing another proceedings No. 1292/09-B1 (Pts)-1 dated 7-8-2009 seeking to effect recovery of Rs. 1,56,590/- from the petitioner and also action of the respondent No. 1 in not considering the appeal especially the interim application for stay of the impugned orders as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Provisions of the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; while issuing consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Sarpanch of Nelamarri Gram Panchayat, Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District in the interest of justice and pass such other suitable orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.18102 of 2009 ORDER:- The matter is coming up for admission. 2. Heard Sri D.Govardhana Chary, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj representing R.1, R.2 and R.3. 3. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders issued by the respondent No.2 in his proceedings No.1292/09-B1 (Pts)-I Dated 7-8-2009 in removing the petitioner from the Office of the Sarpanch of Nelamarri Gram Panchayat of Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District and passing another proceedings No.1292/09- B1 (Pts)-2 Dated 7-8-2009 seeking to effect recovery of Rs.1,59,509/- from the petitioner and also action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the appeal especially the interim application for stay of the impugned orders as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being violative of provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; while issuing a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Sarpanch of Nelamarri Gram Panchayat, Mungala Mandal, Nalgonda District in the interest of justice and pass such other suitable orders. 4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the complaint was made by the Upa- Sarpanch and Ward Members alleging misappropriation of the funds of the Gram Panchayat on 20-10-2008. On 11-11-2008 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding all the charges have been proved except charge No.2. On 3-12-2008 a show-cause notice was issued by R.2 basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation which was acknowledged on 9-2-2009. The impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from the Office of the Sarpanch and to recover an amount of Rs.1,59,590/- had been made on 7-8-2009. It is stated that on receipt of the order, initially the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj but the appeal was returned on the ground that the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development is the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act. Accordingly, it was presented before the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development around 7.00 p.m., on 19-8-2009 in his Chambers but the case was not heard and the interim application for stay also was not considered, but simply the petitioner was informed that a notice of hearing would be issued. Several other further details also had been narrated. 6. It is needless to say that when an appeal is presented along with an interim application, the competent authority is expected to pass appropriate orders. No doubt, in the light of the facts well narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition commencing from paras 2 to 19, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, it would be just and proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the interim application within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order and let the 1st respondent dispose of the main appeal also as expeditiously as possible. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 28th August, 2009 NOTE: Order copy by 31-8-2009 (B/o. smr)