IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23727 of 2008 Between: Sunnapu Rambabu S/o. Veerabhadra Rao Kirlampudi Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) East Godavari District at Kakinada. 3 The District Panchayath Officer, East Godavasri District, Kakinada. 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Peddapuram, E.G. District. 5 Joga Appala Raju W/o. Appara Goneda Grampanchayat, Kirlampudi Mandal,E.G. District. .....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 2nd respondent in Roc No. 769/A2008/A1 dt. 16-6-2008 to suspend the petitioner as Sarpanch of Goneda Grampanchayat, Krilampudi Mandal, E.G. District and further extended the suspension for three months through orders in G.O.Rt.No. 1400 PR & RD (Pts.II) Department dt. 12-9- 2008 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.SUBBHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for Respodnent No.5: Sri V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23727 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Y.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. The petitioner, a Sarpanch under suspension, questions the action of the 2nd respondent dated 16.06.2008 suspending him as Sarpanch and the order in G.O.Rt. No.1400, dated 12.09.2008, extending the period of suspension by another period of three months. It is contended that against the order of suspension a revision has been preferred to the Government which is still pending disposal. Under Section 249 (6) of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, if the District Collector is of the opinion that a Sarpanch has abused his position or the powers vested in him, and that further continuance of such person is detrimental to the interest of the concerned local body, he may suspend such Sarpanch from office for a period not exceeding three months, pending investigation of the charges. Under the first proviso, no order under sub section (6) of Section 249 shall be passed without the person concerned being given an opportunity of making a representation against the action proposed. Under the second proviso, it is competent for the Government to extend, from time to time, the period of suspension for such further period not exceeding three months, so, however, that the total period of suspension shall not exceed six months. It is admitted by Sri Y.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was, indeed, given an opportunity of submitting a representation before the order of suspension was passed. The order of the District Collector placing the petitioner under suspension, vide proceedings dated 16.06.2008 for a period of three months, is for his alleged acts of misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds to a tune of Rs.1,22,158/-. The said period of suspension of three months expired on 15.09.2008 and, in the meanwhile, the Government by G.O.Rt.No.1400 dated 12.09.2008, while extending the period of suspension by a further period of three months with effect from 14.09.2008, so as to enable the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari, Kakinada to finalize the matter, directed the District Panchayat Officer to complete the enquiry and finalize the case within a period of three months. The Government also made it clear that if an enquiry was not completed within the stipulated time, disciplinary action may be initiated against the enquiry officer concerned. Sri Y.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the petitioner has preferred a revision against the order of suspension, a direction should be issued to the Government to forthwith dispose of the revision within a period not exceeding two weeks. I see no reason to issue any such direction as sought for by the petitioner. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious. He is alleged to have indulged in misappropriation of the funds of the Gram Panchayat for a sum exceeding Rs.1.22 Lakhs. Both the initial order of suspension passed by the District Collector, and the order extending the period of suspension as passed by the Government, are in accordance with sub-section (6) of Section 249 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The orders questioned in the writ petition do not necessitate interference. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ 19..11..2008. GS