THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4010 of 2010 Date: 07.09.2010 Between: Koppolu Srinivasulu. ..... Petitioner AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Siva Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 01.07.2009 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Chinalatrapi Gram Panchayat, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District. On 06.09.2008, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why his cheque drawing power shall not be cancelled. Pending submission of the explanation by the petitioner, respondent No.2 directed that the petitioner shall obtain counter signature of the Gudluru Mandal Parishad Extension Officer for encashment of cheques or drawal of bills. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.09.2009. Purporting to consider the said explanation, respondent No.2 restored the cheque drawing power of the petitioner by administering a warning to him not to repeat the past mistakes. Through a separate letter dated 30.06.2009, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that on the basis of the report submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kandukur, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner has been restored and that if the petitioner defalcates Panchayat funds in future, he will be removed from the office without prior notice. On the very next day of addressing the said letter, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order restoring the earlier order dated 06.09.2009 stipulating that the petitioner shall take the counter signature of the Mandal Parishad Extension Officer for encashing the cheques. At the hearing, Sri N. Siva Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is not preceded by any notice and opportunity to the petitioner. He further submitted that if for any reason respondent No.2 felt the necessity of withdrawing the earlier order, he is duty bound to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass a fresh order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj sought to sustain the impugned order. From the facts noted above, it is evident that though respondent No.2 was not fully satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation, he obviously wanted to give one chance to the petitioner to mend his ways and accordingly restored the cheque drawing power to him by order dated 30.06.2009 and the same was communicated to him on the same day. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if for any reason, respondent No.2 wanted to reconsider his earlier order, he is bound to issue a notice to the petitioner and after hearing him pass appropriate order. Principles of natural justice require that any order involving adverse civil consequences must be preceded by a notice to the person, who is likely to be affected by such an order. This procedure not having been followed by respondent No.2, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s explanation, pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.5218 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th September, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN