HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26949 of 2011 Date: 27-9-2011 Between Goluguri Bapiraju … Petitioner and The District Collector (Panchayats), East Godavari district at Kakinada and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26949 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. Show-cause notice dated 17-9-2011 issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 249 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Anaparthi Gram Panchayat, East Godavari district. 3. It appears that one T.Narayana Reddy, one of the existing lessees of the shops belonging to the Gram Panchayat, made a complaint against the petitioner alleging certain irregularities as to fixation of rents of the shops. The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, the 2nd respondent herein, thereupon conducted an enquiry on 13-9-2011 and recorded the statement of the petitioner duly serving a notice on him. Basing on the report dated 16-9-2011 submitted in that regard by the District Panchayat Officer, the 1st respondent-District Collector (Panchayats), East Godavari district, Kakinada, issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 17-9-2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. 4. The petitioner assails the notice primarily on the ground that the 1st respondent has pre-judged the issue even before considering the explanation of the petitioner and that the enquiry, if any, would be a mere formality. It is also contended that the show-cause notice is without any basis as the rents of the shops were fixed under a resolution dated 08-12-2010 of the Gram Panchayat, after taking into consideration that the Gram Panchayat has not been getting income in view of the orders of State Government staying the enhancement of rents. Inasmuch as the rents were fixed at 150% more than the existing rents and that the same has been done by the General Body of the Panchayat, the petitioner as a Sarpanch, cannot be held responsible. 5. It is the further contention that even though the District Panchayat Officer conducted enquiry only insofar as the fixation of rents of the shops are concerned, the 2nd allegation made in the show- cause notice as to the tenders has no basis as it did not precede any enquiry in that regard. It is further submitted that the respondents have been acting in a post-haste manner only with a view to impose ultimate punishment on the petitioner. The said contention is based on the fact that the enquiry was conducted by the District Panchayat Officer on 13-9-2011, a report was submitted by him on 16-9-2011 and the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner immediately on 17-9-2011. Therefore, it is contended that the action initiated is mala fide and the same is liable to be interdicted at the threshold. 6. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contentions. No inference can be drawn merely because the steps are being taken in the manner explained as above. Indisputably, there was an enquiry conducted by the District Panchayat Officer on 13-9-2011 and the show-cause notice has been issued on the basis of report submitted on that regard on 16-9-2011. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the show-cause notice is without any basis. 7. In the show-cause notice, even though it has been stated that the allegation causing loss to the Gram Panchayat is proved, the same cannot be treated as a conclusive finding against the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner, rents have been fixed on the basis of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat in view of the stay orders granted by the State Government. These are all the facts, which require consideration by the competent authority before any final orders are passed. There is no reason as to assume that the 1st respondent, while discharging his duties, will pass an order ignoring the explanation that may be offered by the petitioner. 8. The exercise of jurisdiction by this Court at the threshold has been considered by the apex Court in SPECIAL DIRECTOR v. MOHD. GHULAM GHOUSE[1], in which at paragraph 5 it has been laid down as follows: “This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show-cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and regarding investigative process to find actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless the High Court is satisfied that the show- cause notice was totally non est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show-cause notice was founded on any legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the court.” 9. There is no dispute that the 1st respondent-District Collector (Panchayats), East Godavari district, Kakinada, is the competent authority to hold enquiry and pass appropriate order to initiate the proceedings by issuing the show-cause notice. Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court as above, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the threshold. 10. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the enquiry report dated 16-9-2011 of the District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari district, Kakinada, the 2nd respondent herein, which is the basis for the show-cause notice, has not been furnished to the petitioner. 11. In view of the said submission, the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari district, Kakinada, is directed to furnish a copy of the said report within 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and permit the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice within 4 (four) weeks thereafter. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 27th September, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.26949 of 2011 27th September, 2011. (Ak) [1] (2004) 3 SCC 440