IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19053 of 2010 Between: Ravulakollu Balakrishna ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, Nellore & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.3: Smt. Ch. Vedavani The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19053 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 09.12.2009 of respondent No.2, whereby he has suspended the petitioner’s cheque drawing power, keeping the enquiry pending. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that the petitioner, who is a Sarpanch, has received two show cause notices, one for his suspension under Section 249(6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and another for withdrawal of his cheque power. While the petitioner states that he has filed his explanation to both the show cause notices, it is the pleaded case of the respondents that the petitioner has submitted explanation only to the show cause notice pertaining to his suspension. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner is that in purported exercise of his power under Rule 42(1) of the Rules relating to taxes and lodging of monies and payment of monies by the Gram Panchayat notified in G.O.Ms.No. 30, dated 20.01.1995, respondent No.2 has withdrawn his cheque power without placing any limit of time and that he is not completing the enquiry and passing a final order. This Court in Somagani Venkata Subbamma vs. District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and another[1] held that even though there is no statutory stipulation of time limit for withdrawal of cheque power, equity and fairness require that such withdrawal shall be for a reasonable period and not for unlimited period. Inasmuch as more than one year had elapsed from the withdrawal of cheque power by respondent No.2, he ought to have completed the enquiry and passed a final order. In this view of the matter, while declining to interfere with the impugned order, respondent No.2 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass an appropriate order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.24091 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.12.2010 ES [1] 2006 (5) ALT 26