THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28390 of 2010 Date:16.11.2010 Between: M. Shankaraiah ..... Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Special Chief Secretary to Government, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D. Prakash Reddy, senior counsel, for Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the order dated 25.09.2010 of respondent No.2, whereby she has suspended the petitioner, Sarpanch of Jammikunta Gram Panchayat, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District, for a period of three months in exercise of her powers under Section 249 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the record. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that against the order impugned in this writ petition, he has filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act before respondent No.1 and that the said revision petition is pending. Though the learned senior counsel contended that the impugned order shows complete non-application of mind on the part of respondent No.2, in not independently dealing with the allegations made against the petitioner and merely going by the opinion of the District Panchayat Officer, in my opinion as the revision petition is pending, it is not appropriate for this Court to entertain this writ petition and render findings on merits of the case. As noted above, the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by filing revision before respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner cannot avail a parallel remedy by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition cannot be entertained. The learned senior counsel, however, submitted that though revision petition was filed as far back as 06.10.2010 along with stay application, respondent No.1 has not disposed of either of the same. Inasmuch as the suspension order was passed for a limited period of three months and a substantial part of said period has already expired, there is no justification for respondent No.1 in not disposing of the revision petition. Respondent No.1 is accordingly directed to dispose of the revision petition within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to the petitioner. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36220 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th November, 2010 Note: Issue CC by 22.11.2010. (B/o) GHN