IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3313 OF 2011 DATED:21.3.2011 Between: U. Venkatesh … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Secretary, Panchayat Rat & Rural Development Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3313 OF 2011 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Kachivani Singaram Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Proceedings for his removal were initiated by respondent No.3 under Section 249(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. As many as ten charges were framed against the petitioner. After calling for explanation from the petitioner, respondent No.3 vide his order No.896/2009-B2(P), dt.16.9.2010 found the petitioner guilty of nine charges and removed him from the office of Sarpanch. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.1. By order dt.20.1.2011 in G.O. Rt. No.74, the said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1. Questioning these two orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The only ground on which respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal is contained in paragraph 5 of the impugned G.O., which reads as under: “The case was heard on 17.01.2011. The Sarpanch, Council for I/c. Sarpanch and District Panchayat Officer were attended for hearing. The Sarpanch could not submit any evidence on the allegations levelled against him.” In my opinion, respondent No.1 exercised its statutory power of appellate authority. It is therefore its bounden duty to refer to and deal with the various points urged by the petitioner herein as appellant before it. Respondent No.1 has neither adverted to nor dealt with any of the grounds urged by the petitioner in the appeal. Indeed, by observing that the petitioner could not submit any evidence on the allegations levelled against him, respondent No.1 has thrown the whole burden on the petitioner to disprove charges framed against him. After carefully considering its contents, I am of the opinion that the impugned order fails to satisfy the legal requirements for an order to be passed by a statutory appellate authority. Even while confirming the order of the primary authority, respondent No.1, being the appellate authority, is bound to discuss the basic facts and indicate, at least in brief, the reasons for not accepting the grounds urged by the appellant. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration and passing an order afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner and the impleaded respondents. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.V.M.P. (SR) No.22385 of 2011 and W.P.M.P. No.4101 of 2011 filed by the respective parties are disposed of. No costs. _______________________ (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21.3.2011 bnr