IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4953 of 2005 Between: G. Ravinder S/o Veeraiah Gram Panchayat, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimngar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secrtary to Governmet (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development) Government of Andhra Pradesh Secrtariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Karimnagar 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar 4. Bhupathi Srinivas Reddy, S/o Kista Reddy, Upasarpanch of Chigurumamidi Gram Panchayat, R/o Chigurumamidi village & Mandal, Karimnagar District. * 4th respondent is impleaded as per Orders dated 29.4.2005 in WPMP No.7280 of 2005. .....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, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondents in Memo NO. 1959/Pts.II/A1/2005-2, dated 04-03-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and gross violation of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Sarpanch of Chigurumamidi Vilalge, Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District till the disposal of the Appeal/Revision pending before the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT. Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR.C. DAMODAR REDDY The Court at the admission stage made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is elected as Sarpanch of Chigurumamidi Grampanchayat, Karimnagar District, in the elections held in the year 2001. Proceedings under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder were initiated against him by the respondents 2 and 3, alleging that he misappropriated the funds of the Gram Panchayat. After conducting enquiry and issuing a show cause notice dated 06-12- 2004, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 05-02-2005, placing the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. Treating it as a revision, the 1st respondent granted an order of interim stay on 14-02-2005. However, the interim order was vacated on 04-03-2005. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, submits that once the 1st respondent has entertained a revision against the order dated 05-02-2005, passed by the 2nd respondent, and granted interim orders, further steps should have been taken only after issuing notice of hearing to the petitioner. He contends that the interim order was vacated without issuing any notice of hearing and without providing opportunity to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submit that it is not necessary for the Government to issue notice of hearing for vacating the order of stay. They contend that it is in the discretion of the Government, whether to continue or vacate the interim orders, having regard to the public interest involved in the matter. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent aggrieved by the order dated 05-02- 2005, passed by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent treated the proceedings as revision and granted interim order on 14-02-2005. The same was however, vacated through memo dated 04-03-2005. A perusal of the memo discloses that the orders therein were passed only on the basis of a letter dated 17-02-2005, addressed by the M.L.A. Neither any notice of hearing was issued to the petitioner, nor he was given an opportunity to put forward his case. The 1st respondent called for the remarks from the 2nd respondent, and even before the remarks and records were received, the impugned order is passed. Once an interim order is passed by the 1st respondent, in favour of the petitioner, valuable rights accrued to him. It is certainly open to the 1st respondent to modify or vacate the interim orders, or dispose of the appeal itself, depending on its satisfaction, on a consideration of the relevant material. However, before any orders, adverse to the petitioner, are passed, it is obligatatory on the part of the 1st respondent to issue a notice of hearing. The 1st respondent does not dispute the fact that it vacated the interim orders, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned memo dated 04-03-2005 is set aside, and the order of stay granted in favour of the petitioner shall remain in force. It is however, left open to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in the application for stay, or in the appeal itself, duly observing the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-04-2005. KO Copy to: 1 The Principal Secretary to Government (Panchayat Raj and Rural Development), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Karimnagar. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar. 4 Two C.Cs to the G.P. for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (O.U.T.). 5 Two C.D. copies.