IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21507 of 2008 Between: Nagulapalli Rajender, S/o. N. Venkatesham, R/o. Reddypet Village, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary to the Panchayat Raj Department, Secretarait Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector (Panchayat Wing), Nizamabad. 3 The Extension Officer, (Panchayat Raj & Village Administration), Machareddy, Mandal Machareddy, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Proceedings No. 666/2007- B5(P) dated 12-9-2008 along with its Notiﬁcation issued by the 2nd respondent herein removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Reddypet Vilalge of Machareddy Mandal of Nizamabad District, by exercising powers under Sec. 249(1) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as arbitrary, illegal without jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure under the provision 249 of AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Reddypet Grampanchayat, Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District, in the year 2006. The Collector, Panchayat Wing, Nizamabad, the second respondent, issued a show cause notice, dated 25.07.2008, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why he shall not be removed from the oﬃce of the Sarpanch, in exercise of power under Section 249 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). It was alleged that the petitioner misused the funds allocated to the Gram Panchayat under watershed scheme. The petitioner submitted his explanation. On a consideration of the same, the second respondent passed an order, dated 12.09.2008, directing removal of the petitioner from the oﬃce of Sarpanch. It was directed that the said order would come into force with eﬀect from 12.10.2008. A notiﬁcation was also issued, as required under the Act. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order, dated 12.09.2008, and the consequential notiﬁcation. He complains that he has not given an opportunity to explain and that the ﬁndings are based upon unilateral evaluation of the matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. This is not a case where the impugned order was passed without issuing any show cause notice. The petitioner has enclosed a copy of the show cause notice. This Court would have entertained the writ petition without requiring the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, had it been a case where the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Once it has emerged that the second respondent issued a show cause notice before passing the impugned order, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice are violated. Various grounds pleaded by the petitioner on merits can certainly be examined by the appellate authority. The impugned order is yet to come into force. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since holidays of diﬀerent nature are going to intervene before 12.10.2008, it may not be possible for the petitioner to successfully pursue the remedy of appeal, or to obtain interim order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal as well as to seek interim orders and that the impugned order as well as the notiﬁcation shall not be eﬀective for a period of six weeks from today or until the appellate authority disposes of the application for stay, whichever is earlier. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.30.09.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ