IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN WRIT PETITION No.11863 of 2010 Between: M.Yadaiah. … Petitioner And: The Collector (Panchayat Wing), Ranga Reddy District, Lakdi-ka-Pul, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 18-5-2010 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he has suspended the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch for a period of three months. At the hearing there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the record. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bandlaguda Jagir, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. On the ground that he indulged in irregularities in execution of NREGS works by allotting the same in his own name without holding Gram Panchayat meetings, a show cause notice was issued to him. By the impugned order respondent No.1 suspended the petitioner for a period of three months. One of the main grounds on which the petitioner assailed the order of suspension is that he was denied proper opportunity of being heard. In the impugned order respondent No.1 has, however, stated that in his report the Extension Officer (PR&RD), Rajendranagar Mandal has stated that two of his subordinates sought to serve show cause notice on the petitioner and as the latter refused to receive the same, they have pasted the notice on the compound wall of the petitioner’s house on 29-4-2010. This Court on 26-5-2010 has granted interim suspension of the impugned order. Under Section 249(6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 respondent No.1 is empowered to place the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat under suspension for a period not exceeding three months, pending enquiry. The said provision envisages a prior opportunity before passing such order of suspension. In view of the contentious issue relating to non- service of notice on the petitioner and the fact that the order of suspension is under suspension during the last five months, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry and pass a final order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the petitioner is evidently continuing as the Sarpanch on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court, it is appropriate that he is continued till completion of enquiry and passing the final order by respondent No.1. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25-11-2010 MNR