THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15382 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner herein is the elected Sarpanch of Amancharla Gram Panchayat. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent/District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, dated 19.05.2008, under which the petitioner herein was directed not to draw monies of the Gram Panchayat pending enquiry initiated against him and authorizing the 2nd respondent/Mandal Development Officer, Nellore Rural Mandal, to draw cheques as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that basing on the representation dated 14.03.2008 made by 10 Ward members and members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency of Amancharla alleging that the petitioner was indulging in several irregularities in managing the affairs of the Gram Panchayat, the 1st respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days as to why he should not be prohibited from drawing monies of the Gram Panchayat in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 42 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20.01.1995 and pending such enquiry, the 2nd respondent was authorized to draw monies from the general funds of the Gram Panchayat for the purposes specified thereunder. The said proceedings dated 19.5.2008 are under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that the said proceedings are in utter violation of the provisions of Rule 42 of the Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner while pointing out that though the petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 20.06.2008, the 1st respondent failed to conclude the enquiry and no final order has been passed so far, contended that keeping the enquiry pending for an indefinite period would defeat the object and purpose of sub-rule (1) of Rule 42. However, the learned Government Pleader under instructions submitted that no such explanation was received from the petitioner. The fact that the District Panchayat Officer is competent to prohibit any executive authority from drawing monies of the Gram Panchayat in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 42(1) of the Rules is not in dispute. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 42, the executive authority is entitled for an opportunity before passing such order and by the impugned proceedings under which the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation, it is clear that such an opportunity was given to the petitioner. The second proviso to Rule 42(1) further shows that the 1st respondent is competent to issue interim direction withdrawing the power of the executive authority to draw monies of the Gram Panchayat pending enquiry. In the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to the statutory rules and without jurisdiction. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 1st respondent ought not to have authorized the 2nd respondent to draw monies of the Gram Panchayat since the second proviso does not empower the 1st respondent to pass such an order pending enquiry. The said contention is also without any substance, since the authorization given to the 2nd respondent to draw monies of the Gram Panchayat pending enquiry is for administrative convenience of the Gram Panchayat. Such discretion exercised by the District Panchayat Officer in public interest as an interim measure warrants no interference by this Court on any ground whatsoever. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation within two weeks from today. If any such explanation is received within the time specified above, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Note: Issue CC in three days. (Bo) Kgr 21.07.2008. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15382 of 2008 Between: B.Achaiah, S/o. Ragaiah, Amancharla Village, Nellore Mandal and District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, 2 The Mandal Development Officer, Nellore .....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 an appropriate Writ, Or Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Roc.No.2101/2007-A2 dated 19-05-2008 are illegal, arbitrary in violations of the provisions of G.O.M.S.no.30 dated 20-1-1995 and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his functions orders U/Rules 40 of the G.O.M.S.NO.30 DATED 20-1- 1995 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: