HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.921 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Honourable the Acting Chief Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and at their request the main Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant-petitioner, who filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the letter Patent, seeks to assail the order in dismissing the Writ Petition, wherein he sought to quash the order of respondent No.2, dated 25.09.2010, suspending him as the Sarpanch of Jammikunta Gram Panchayat, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District for a period of three months in exercise of his powers under Section 249(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant-petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Jammikunta Gram Panchayat in the year 2006. By the impugned order dated 25.09.2010, respondent No.2 suspended the appellant for misappropriation of funds on the basis of the report submitted by respondent No.4. The main grounds on which the impugned order is attacked are that there is absolutely no application of mind by respondent No.2, that there is no specific reference of the petitioner’s involvement and reasons shown therefor and, therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside. The learned Single Judge did not entertain the Writ Petition since the petitioner had already availed the remedy of revision before respondent No.1 and dismissed the Writ Petition. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that despite the order of this Court in W.P.No.28390 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010 directing respondent No.1 to dispose of the revision petition, neither the matter has been taken up nor any orders has been passed thereon on the revision petition. He would further contend that the appellant was not communicated with any order by respondent No.1 till date. Since the very period of suspension is three months by order of respondent No.2, dated 25.09.2010, respondent No.1 granting suspension in the meantime without disposing of the revision petition is totally misconceived and illegal. Further, such inaction on the part of respondent No.1 is contrary where necessary action has to be taken either by granting the relief or otherwise rejecting the same. Admittedly, in this case, no orders have been passed on the revision petition. The action of respondent No.1 is deplorable and does not serve the object of the legislation. In the circumstances, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28930 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010 is set aside and the order of respondent No.2 dated 25.09.2010 stands suspended till the disposal of revision petition pending before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the revision petition within one month from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. No order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,ACJ V.SURI APPA RAO,J Date:24.11.2010 usd