THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4844 of 2011 Date: 14.3.2011 Between: Khathif Syed Ghouse Peer ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector/District Program Coordinator, NREGS, A.P. Chittoor, and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala Counsel for Respondents : A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4844 of 2011 Order: The writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief : “May be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned distraint proceedings R.O.C.A/309/10, dated 25.10.2010 to the petitioner in form No.1, under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be justified in the eye of law and further direct the respondent not to take further action on the impugned notice issued by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings R.O.C.A/309/10, dated 25.10.2010 and pass such other and further orders.” At the hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and conceded by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by judgment dated 19.1.2011 in Writ Petition No. 22984 of 2010 and batch. In the said batch of cases, this Court set aside the orders similar to the one questioned in this writ petition with the direction to the Project Director concerned to issue show cause notice with specific allegations and supply all the material forming basis for such allegations. It was further directed that if the Project Director concerned receives explanations from the petitioners within the stipulated time, he shall consider the same in detail and pass appropriate orders containing reasons in support of his conclusions with reference to the explanation offered and the material, if any, submitted by the petitioners. This Court further made it clear that the scope of the writ petition was confined to fixing up the monetary liability on the petitioners only and that the said order will not prevent the disciplinary authorities from initiating appropriate disciplinary action in accordance with the extant Service regulations. Following the same, this writ petition is allowed in terms thereof. As a sequel, W.P.M.P. No.6001 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 14th March, 2011 pnb