HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.25193 of 2009 Date : 24-11-2009 Between : Smt.A.Naga Parvathi .. Petitioner and The District Panchayat Officer, Guntur District, Guntur and others .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.No.25193 of 2009 ORDER: 1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had taken notice on 19-11-2009 and requested time to get instructions. Thus the matter is coming up for Admission today. that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the executive authority concerned. 2. Heard Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing the respondents. 3 . The Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Roc.No.3972/2009-G9 dated 8- 9-2009 prohibiting the petitioner from drawing the general funds, XII Financial Commission Funds, S.F.C. and all other funds lodged in the Sub-Treasury and the Bank concerned pertaining to the Vykuntapuram Gram Panchayat, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Vykuntapuram Gram Panchayat in the elections conducted in the month of August 2006 and had been functioning as such without any complaint from any quarter whatsoever. The execution of works by the petitioner and her functioning is appreciated by one and all in the village and accredited by the District Panchayat Officials. During her tenure a number of developmental works in the village like laying cement concrete roads, construction of water tank for supply of drinking water to the entire villagers under protected water supply scheme and extension of school building etc. She had also improved the amenities like street lighting, sanitation and had been conducting the meetings regularly. 5 . It is also further stated that while matters stood thus during the elections conducted to the Lok Sabha and State Assembly in the month of May 2009, the local Minister developed a vindictive attitude against the petitioner on the ground that in the village, majority of votes were not polled in favour of the ruling party and therefore he directed the respondents to somehow harass the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner’s family had become popular in the village and the petitioner’s husband was also elected as the President of the local Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society for two villages i.e, Vykuntapuram village and the neighbouring village viz., Pedamaddur in its area of operation. Further it is stated that the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice in Roc.No.3972/2009-G9 dated 8-9-2009 purporting to be exercising the powers under Rule 41 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.30, PR & RD dated 29-12- 2005 making false and untenable allegations to prohibit the petitioner from withdrawing the moneys of Vykuntapuram Gram Panchayat. It was further directed that pending the issuance of final orders, the petitioner shall not draw funds and further the 3rd respondent shall operate the Gram Panchayat general funds, XII Finance Commission funds and other funds during the interregnum period. The said notice was served on the petitioner on 17-9-2009 and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to each and every allegation with supporting material on 30-9-2009 marking a copy to the District Collector, Guntur and also to the 2nd respondent. As there were some errors in the reply, the petitioner submitted an errata on the same day. 6 . It is also further stated that the respondents, at the instance of political rivals of the petitioner who are followers of local Minister, had given wide publicity to the orders of the 1st respondent in the local newspapers like Ssakshi, Eenadu and Visalandhra only with a view to damage the image and reputation of the petitioner. However, no publicity is given to the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. The mala fides on the part of the respondents are not only evident from the wide publicity given by them but also from the fact that the allegations had been made even against the works with which the petitioner has no concern at all. Similarly the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged illegal connections of water supply since the same is being looked after by the Village Secretary. In fact, the 1st respondent himself issued a show cause notice in Roc.No.2047/2009-G8 dated 8-6-2009 seeking explanation from the Village Secretary. However, contrary to the same he made allegations against the petitioner in the impugned proceedings. Further it is stated that the allegations made against the petitioner are obviously with a view to drag the petitioner’s husband in the matter with which he has no concern at all. The petitioner also filed relevant documents before the respondent to establish that she has nothing to do with the other financial irregularities and she is not even a party to those proceedings as alleged. 7. The respondents having received the explanation, are sitting over the proceedings only with a view to prevent the petitioner from operating the Gram Panchayat funds indefinitely under interim orders which is vested in the petitioner under Section 74(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience). 8 . It is also further stated that there must be strong reasons for withdrawing such statutory power. The action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings without even conducting any enquiry and further in not passing any orders in spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the material is arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even the salaries of the Gram Panchayat are not being paid by the 3rd respondent who is totally indifferent towards the administration of the Gram Panchayat and its financial needs. All the developmental works had come to a standstill and even work relating to laying of cement concrete roads was left half way through and the material is lying on the roads and the sole purpose of the respondents is to bring the administration of the Gram Panchayat to a standstill and to help the political rivals of the petitioner who are followers of the local Minister to have political scores settled against the petitioner. Certain further averments also had been made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 9. Rule 40 of the Rules relating to Lodging of Moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and Payments of Moneys from the Gram Panchayat Fund issued under G.O.Ms.No.30, PR, RD & R dated 20- 1-1995 specifies “All orders or cheques against the Gram Panchayat fund shall be signed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat”. Rule 41 of the aforesaid Rules specifies “The drawing of moneys under Rule 40 by the executive authority shall be subject to the control of, and the conditions laid down by the District Panchayat Officer concerned”. Much emphasis had been laid on Rule 42 of the said Rules which reads as hereunder : 1. The District Panchayat Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any executive authority from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order. Provided that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the executive authority concerned; Provided further that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the executive authority not to draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat pending the exercise of this power under this sub-rule. 2. Any executive authority aggrieved by an order passed by the District Panchayat Officer concerned under sub- rule (1), may prefer an appeal in writing to the District Collector concerned within seven days of the receipt of the order and the decision of the District Collector thereon shall be final. 3. Every order passed under sub-rule (1) shall specify the name of the person or the authority who shall draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat during the period during which the executive authority is prohibited from drawing such moneys. 4. A copy of every order passed under sub-rule (1) or sub- rule (2) shall be communicated to all banks and treasuries in which the moneys of the Gram Panchayat are lodged. 5. On and from the date of receipt of such order by any bank or treasury, no payment shall, for the period specified in such order, be made to the executive authority who is prohibited by such order from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat. The second proviso to Rule 42(1) specifies “Provided further that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the executive authority not to draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat pending the exercise of this power under this sub-rule.” It is stated that this Rule had been substituted by G.O.Ms.No.444, PR & RD dated 29-12-2005. The first proviso to Rule 42(1) no doubt specifies that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the Sarpanch concerned. 10. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that due to certain political reasons, just with a view to further delay only the 1st respondent is not passing any order whatsoever. Further the grievance of the writ petitioner is that this interim direction made prohibiting the Sarpanch not to draw moneys of the Gram Panchayat also is for extraneous reasons and there was no proper application of mind and the same was made at the behest of certain political rivals. Certain submissions also had been made relating to the status of the local bodies like Gram Panchayat after the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. 11. When the explanation already had been submitted it would have been just and proper on the part of the 1st respondent to pass appropriate order at the earliest point of time. The 1st respondent is not expected to keep the matter pending for sufficiently a long time. No doubt emphasis also had been laid on the words “…for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing….” and also on the words “…. for such period as may be specified in such order….” in Rule 42(1) of the aforesaid Rules. However it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj that the 1st respondent is inclined to make an order at the earliest point of time. 12. Without expressing any further opinion relating to the nature of the charges, let the 1st respondent pass appropriate order in this regard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. In the event of the 1st respondent not making an order in this regard as aforesaid within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the order under challenge would not be operative till such appropriate order is made by the 1st respondent. No costs. _________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date : 24-11-2009 Note : Furnish copy in a week AM