THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31041 of 2010 Dated 31st March, 2011 Between: Nagula Vasantha …Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Warangal, Warangal District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri K.Rama Krishna, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Dubyala Village, Mogullapalli Mandal, Warangal District. Respondent No.2 issued notice bearing No.218/2010/A1, dated 25.11.2010, to the petitioner directing her to be personally present on 30.11.2010 with cash books, vouchers, m-books and resolutions, failing which, it will be deemed that she has misappropriated the Gram Panchayat’s funds and further action will be taken. By the impugned order passed on 30.11.2010, respondent No.1 has withdrawn the petitioner’s cheque power with the further direction that the Gram Panchayat’s funds will be released on the signature of the Panchayat Secretary and counter signed by the Extension Officer (PR & RD), Mogullapally. The main reason for taking this action is that the petitioner failed to respond to the notice, dated 30.10.2010, issued by respondent No.1. The petitioner has pleaded in her affidavit that on receipt of the said notice, dated 30.10.2010, from respondent No.1, she has submitted her reply, dated 19.11.2010, and received by respondent No.1 on 24.11.2010, to the effect that the records which were directed to be produced by her were taken away by the Extension Officer on 27.09.2010 and that despite the said information, the impugned order has been passed. At the hearing, the learned counsel representing the respondents has not disputed the plea of the petitioner that a representation was made by her on 19.11.2010, which was received by the office of respondent No.1 on 24.11.2010. In my opinion, when the petitioner’s representation was received by respondent No.1, he should have adverted to the same and taken appropriate action before passing the impugned order. Failure of respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s representation constitutes violation of principles of natural justice and procedural illegality in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 19.11.2010. If respondent No.1 finds that the records directed to be produced by him are in the custody of the Extension Officer as claimed by the petitioner, he shall allow the petitioner to peruse the same and permit her to file her explanation thereafter. The petitioner shall be given a proper notice and an opportunity of being heard before any order impinging upon her cheque drawing power is passed. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 10.12.2010, granted by this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.39493 of 2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.39493 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.983 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st March, 2011 VGB