THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4942 of 2010 Dated:04.03.2010 Between: G.Vasuram Naik. …Petitioner and The District Collector (Panchayat Raj), Nizamabad District, Nizamabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4942 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is elected as Sarpanch of Achanpally Gram Panchayat in 2006. The first respondent initiated action in 2006. The first respondent initiated action under Section 249(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity), on a complaint made by the Upa Sarpanch. A show cause notice dated 19.12.2009 was issued framing five charges. These related to allegations of unaccounted drawal of money from Gram Panchayat funds and 12th Finance Commission Funds. The petitioner submitted explanation. After considering the same the first respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner resorted to misuse and abuse of the power and accordingly passed order of removal under Section 249(1) of the Act. Against the said order, dated 19.02.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 249(7) of the Act on 25.02.2010. He also filed an application seeking suspension of the removal order. Even while the same is pending, again the petitioner invoked certiorari jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order passed by the first respondent on 19.02.2010 directing removal of the petitioner. It is now well settled that a person cannot avail statutory remedy of appeal/revision and a writ petition simultaneously (See Bombay Region Development Authority v Gokul Patel[1]). Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. As the petitioner has already filed appeal, it is open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy. Having regard to the fact that the appeal is already filed, this Court observes that the Government may pass appropriate orders in the suspension petition within a period of two weeks and also dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 04.03.2010 vs [1] (1995) 1 SCC 642