THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.10564 OF 2011 ORDER Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner who has suffered an order of removal from the office of Sarpanch has filed this writ petition to declare the action of the first respondent-State Government in not granting stay of the order dated 18-3- 2011 pursuant to which she has been removed from the office, as illegal. Having regard to the short grievance presented by the petitioner, the matter need not be gone into in extenso. Suffice to state that the petitioner was a Sarpanch of Bhoopalpalli. Several irregularities are alleged to have been committed by her while discharging the duties as Sarpanch. 14 charges were framed alleging omissions and commissions as to permissions granted for tap connections, mutation of registers relating to properties, construction permissions, tenders and mis-appropriations. The petitioner denied the said charges. However, the second respondent passed orders in File No.1772/2009/A2, dated 18-3-2001 removing her from the office of Sarpanch. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has availed an alternative remedy of appeal to the State Government as provided under Section 249 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). Along with the said appeal, the petitioner has also filed a petition seeking stay of the order of removal. The said appeal was filed on 1-4- 2011. Since, the first respondent has not considered either the stay petition or the appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court for the aforesaid relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the second respondent dated 18-3-2011 is wholly un-sustainable as the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of furnishing the relevant record so as to enable her to properly defend her case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not guilty of any charges leveled against her and a proper scrutiny of the records would have revealed the innocence of the petitioner. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case since the very order dated 18-3-2011 is impugned in the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the State Government. However, it may be noticed that sub-section 7 of Section 249 of the Act even while providing remedy of appeal to the aggrieved party, enables the Government to stay the opertion of the order appealed against. The proviso therefore envisages that in appropriate case the State Government is required to exercise its jurisdiction and pass an appropriate order during pendency of the appeal. In matters like this, wherever elected Sarpanchs are removed from the Office, it is also incumbent on the State Government to pass orders expeditiously. In this case the appeal has been filed along with stay petition on 1-4-2011. Therefore, the first respondent ought to have considered the application for stay and passed appropriate orders thereon. Having regard to the said provisions of law and the nature of issues involved, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of the stay application filed by the petitioner against the orders of the second respondent dated 18-3-2011 as early as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Note: Issue CC tomorrow rkk Dated: 19-4-2011