HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.14966 of 2011 Date: 07-9-2011 Between B.Kamala Kumari … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.14966 of 2011 Order: Letter of the Panchayat Secretary, Pamarru Gram Panchayat, the 4th respondent herein, in Roc.No.226/2011 dated 23-4-2011 addressed to the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna, the 3rd respondent herein, is under challenge. 2. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of Pamarru Gram Panchayat during 2001-2006. There are certain allegations of misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds against the petitioner. Earlier, a distraint order dated 25-8-2007 was served on the petitioner for recovery of the alleged misappropriated amounts. The said order was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.18869 of 2007, dated 18-02-2011. This Court observed in the said writ petition that the distraint order was passed without considering the detailed explanation of the petitioner and that no enquiry as contemplated under Section 265 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) was conducted for determining her liability. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the 4th respondent-Panchayat Secretary has addressed the impugned letter to the 3rd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, drawing attention as to the details of the alleged misappropriation amounts and sought appropriate directions for taking action against the petitioner. 3. The impugned letter is under challenge on the ground that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate any action for recovery of the amounts and that if any recovery is contemplated, it can be done only by following the procedure under Section 265 of the Act. 4. The 4th respondent has filed a Counter-Affidavit, inter alia, stating that the impugned letter is only an internal correspondence between him and the District Panchayat Officer, therefore the writ petition is misconceived. 5. Indisputably, under the impugned letter, the 4th respondent was seeking only instructions as to the course of action to be taken against the petitioner. The said letter cannot be construed as an order. Admittedly, no proceedings have been initiated so far for recovery of the alleged misappropriation amounts under Section 265 of the Act. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned letter, which is a mere internal correspondence, does not give any cause of action to the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. It is, however, made clear that any action for recovery of the amount shall be entertained only by following the procedure under Section 265 of the Act. 6. Subject to the said observation, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 07th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.14966 of 2011 07th September, 2011. (Ak)