IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19439 of 2000 Between: A. Satya Narayana, S/o. SatyaNarayana Nadikudi, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Panchayath Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 Divisional Panchayath Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.SRINIVASAN FOR MR K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 27-09-2000 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioner was the Sarpanch of Nadikudi Gram Panchayat, Amalapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. On the ground that he purchased electricity goods in excess of the ceiling limit during the years 1993-94 and 1994-95, without ratiﬁcation from the District Collector, he was directed to pay the sum of Rs.35,161/-. Questioning the said order, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.23756 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 08- 11-1996 with the direction to the respondents to give a notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before making demand. Later on, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 submitted a report on 09-12-1997, based on which it was concluded that the petitioner misappropriated an amount to the extent of Rs.35,161/- and that after W.P.No.23756 of 1996 was disposed of, necessary enquiry was conducted and the impugned order was passed. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recovery order is in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.569, dated 13-05-1965, under which any recovery can be made only on the basis of the audit objections. According to the learned counsel, no audit objection was ever raised and therefore, no recovery can be made from the petitioner. He also urged that the impugned demand is barred by limitation in view of proviso to Rule 5(1) notified in the said G.O. At the hearing, it has transpired that under Section 265 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Commissioner (the District Collector) is vested with the power to pass an order to recover the loss sustained by the Panchayat on account of misconduct or gross neglect on the part of the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch, President, Vice-President etc. In the instant case, respondent No.1 issued the order, which is wholly without jurisdiction. Though the petitioner did not speciﬁcally raise this contention, as the issue pertains to jurisdiction, I do not intend to throw out the writ petition on the ground that such a contention has not been raised. As the impugned order is passed by respondent No.1 without authority and jurisdiction, the same is set aside. Liberty is, however, given to the District Collector to initiate appropriate proceedings, if he so desires. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st September, 2008 vrn