IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18463 of 2008 Between: Smt.C.Saritha Badrinarayana Goud W/o.Sri Badrinarayana Goud Poocharam Gram Panchayat Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Ranga Reddy District, at Kharitabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order in file No.15/2008-B.1(Panchayat), dated 20.8.2008 issued by the respondent removing petitioner from the office of Sarpanch, Pocharam Gram panchayat, Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR Counsel for the Respondent .: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18463 OF 2008 ORDER : The petitioner herein was elected as Sarpanch of Poocharam Gram Panchayat in the elections held in the year 2006. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 20.8.2008 passed by the respondent herein removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 249(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that a show-cause notice dated 18.2.2008 was issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why she should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch on the ground that she had allegedly abused her position and the powers vested in her. The allegations against her were specified in detail in the Annexure to the said notice and she was required to submit her explanation within 15 days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her explanation dated 10.3.2008 denying the allegations. Having considered the same, the impugned order of removal dated 20.8.2008 was passed by the respondent herein. At the outset, it is to be noted that as against the impugned order passed under sub- section (1) of Section 249 of the Act, an appeal lies to the Government under sub- section (7) of Section 249 of the Act. In view of the said alternative remedy available under the statute, without exhausting the same, the petitioner cannot maintain the present writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is also vitiated by non-application of mind to the relevant factors, the availability of alternative remedy is not a bar to entertain the present writ petition. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 20.8.2008 was in violation of the principles of natural justice since the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rangareddy (East Division), dated 9.1.2008, on the basis of which the proceedings for removal were initiated, was not furnished to her. It is further contended that since no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, on that ground also the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is true that a perusal of the show-cause notice dated 18.2.2008 as well as the impugned order of removal dated 20.8.2008 shows that the entire proceedings emanated from the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, dated 9.1.2008. However, it is clear from the show-cause notice that a copy of the said report was annexed to the show-cause notice served on the petitioner. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner while submitting her explanation dated 10.3.2008 never complained of non-furnishing of the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer. She submitted her explanation without raising any objection as to alleged want of relevant material nor such request for copy of the said report was made subsequently. In the circumstances, the allegation that the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, dated 9.1.2008 was not made available to the petitioner appears to be only an after-thought and cannot be accepted at this stage so as to hold that the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above finding, the decision of the Division Bench cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in D. SATHI REDDY v. COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, A.P., HYD. has no relevance. I do not find any substance even in the allegation that the failure of the respondents to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. It is relevant to note that sub-section (1) of Section 249 of the Act requires only an opportunity for explanation to the Sarpanch against whom the proceedings for removal are initiated. Admittedly such an opportunity is given to the petitioner and she submitted her detailed explanation without seeking an opportunity of being heard. Hence, the respondent cannot be found fault with in passing the impugned order on consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the other material available on record. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in BHIMADOLE NAGESWARA RAO v. GOVT. OF A.P. contended that apart from giving an opportunity for explanation it is mandatory to give a further opportunity of being heard. In the above decision, this Court was dealing with the validity of an order of suspension under Section 249 (6) of the Act before passing which neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner therein. In the circumstances, this Court held that the impugned order was directly in the teeth of mandate under the first proviso to Section 249 (6) of the Act. In the said decision, this Court did not hold that an opportunity of being heard is mandatory either under Section 249 (6) of the Act or Section 249 (1) of the Act, but it was only held that it is expedient to give an opportunity for explanation before any order of suspension is passed. Hence, I am unable to hold that the impugned order dated 20.8.2008 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal under the Act. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal available under Section 249(7) of the Act. Having regard to the fact that under the impugned order the petitioner is sought to be removed from the elected public office, I deem it appropriate to order that status quo obtaining as on today as to the impugned order of removal shall be maintained for a period of two weeks from today. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 26.08.2008 gbs Note – Issue operative portion by wire At party’s costs. (B/O) gbs