IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12188 of 2009 Between: B. Srinivasulu S/o. China Malakondaiah Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District Ongole. .....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 by declaring the impugned Proceedings Vide Roc No. 1348/2008 (PNCH) A2 dt. 6-2-2009 passed by the 2nd respondent withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary malicious violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KANAKAMEDALA RAVINDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Muthalapadu Gram Panchayat, Lingasamudram Mandal, Prakasam District, asserts that the 2nd respondent, based on certain frivolous complaints made by some of the ward members against the petitioner, issued a Notice dated 1.8.2007 indicating that enquiry would be conducted into the alleged allegations. The petitioner states that enquiry was conducted wherein it was revealed that no irregularity was found to have been committed by him, in spite of this, the 2nd respondent issued a Show Cause Notice dated 03.10.2007 calling for his explanation, and the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation dated 24.10.2007, and now, it is his grievance that the 2nd respondent, without considering his explanation, has issued the proceedings dated 6.2.2009, withdrawing the petitioner’s cheque powers. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, it is specifically denied that the petitioner submitted an explanation to the show cause notice dated 3.10.2007, and further, the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the impugned proceedings before the 1st respondent, and the same is pending disposal. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the material placed on record, it is clear that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Show Cause Notice issued by the 2nd respondent and it was received by the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer on 25.10.2007 and an endorsement to the effect was also made on it, but admittedly, this fact is specifically denied by the 2nd respondent in the impugned proceedings, which is apparent on the face of the record. However, inasmuch as the petitioner is said to have filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, which is said to be pending, without going into merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-District Collector (Panchayat Wing) is directed to consider the appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned proceedings, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that till the disposal of the appeal, the impugned proceedings dated 6.2.2009 shall stand suspended.” Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd June, 2009 bcj