THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12671 of 2010 Dated:07.06.2010 Between: N.Satyanarayana ...Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.II), Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12671 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was Sarpanch of Amdapur Village of Bodhan Mandal in Nizamabad District. By proceedings dated 05.03.2010 the District Collector passed orders under Section 249(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act), removing the petitioner as Sarpanch. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 249(7) of the Act to the Government on 20.03.2010. It is his case that the Government on their own adjourned the matter thrice by issuing telegrams to the petitioner’s Counsel for one reason or the other and by a telegram dated 20.04.2010 the petitioner was informed that the hearing of the appeal is postponed until further orders. Aggrieved by the delay in disposal of the appeal the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. In Mir Fazle Ali Nasiri v. State of A.P[1] this Court considered the question as to whether in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court can mandate the time schedule to ensure timeliness in the disposal of the appeals before the quasi judicial/administrative authorities. After referring to relevant Supreme Court authorities this Court held as under. That being the legal position the time limit within which a statutory authority should act or due to act not being mandatory, it would be impermissible for this Court in every case to issue a direction as a matter of course to public authorities to dispose of application/appeal/revision, within a specified time. It can always be argued that, such a direction would amount to introducing a requirement in the statute, which the Legislature itself did not provide for. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that as and when such a writ petition is filed seeking a direction - seemingly innocuous - to dispose of the matter expeditiously, such a direction cannot ordinarily be given unless, of course, there is inordinate delay in discharging public duties which itself amount to arbitrariness. In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived. On instructions, Assistant Government Pleader, however, submits that the matter stands posted on 22.06.2010. Therefore, this Court observes that at least on that day the Government may dispose of the appeal after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner or if he is not able to appear on that day, consider the written arguments which shall be submitted by the petitioner’s Counsel within a period of one week from today. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is disposed of. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07.06.2010 Note: Issue C.C by tomorrow. B/o. vs [1] 2007 (2) ALD 3