THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25180 OF 2007 DATED 10TH FEBRUARY, 2011 BETWEEN S.Mallesham …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25180 OF 2007 O R D E R The Sarpanch of Ibrahimnagar Gram Panchayat, Gollapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District, the petitioner herein, assails the proceedings dated 20.11.2007 passed by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Karimnagar, suspending him from office in exercise of powers conferred by Section 249(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1994’). This Court by order dated 27.11.2007, while granting suspension of the impugned proceedings, left it open to the respondents to take appropriate action in the matter after conducting necessary enquiry. Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that no action however was taken pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. In M.KAVITHA V/s. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1], I had taken the view that the power exercised under Section 249(6) of the Act of 1994 was only by way of an interim measure pending the exercise of further action for removal of the Sarpanch/Upa-Sarpanch from office. Support for this view was drawn from the earlier Judgments of learned single Judges of this Court in SMT.B.SHASIKALA V/s. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (PANCHAYAT WING), KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, KARIMNAGAR[2] and YERNENI KUSUMA V/s. GOVERNMENT OF A.P., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD[3]. The observations of the learned Judge in SMT.B.SHASIKALA2 may be extracted: "The 1st respondent is no doubt vested with the power to place a Sarpanch under suspension. That however can be only as a measure pending enquiry or investigation into the charges framed under Section 249(1) of the Act. The record does not disclose that the 1st respondent has framed any charges under Section 249(1) of the Act or issued show-cause notice. The power under Section 249(6) of the Act cannot be exercised independently." In YERNENI KUSUMA3, another learned Judge observed: "……… Therefore, on a true construction of Section 249(1) and Section 249(6), the conclusion is irresistible that unless and until the action is contemplated under Section 249(1) and (4) and investigation is launched towards that goal, the exercise of power under Section 249(6) is not warranted. ........." I therefore held that the approach of the authorities in assuming that the power exercised under Section 249(6) of the Act of 1994 was an independent one whereby they could suspend a Sarpanch without reference to any further action under Section 249(1) of the Act of 1994 was not in keeping with the scheme of the provision. While so, it is now brought to my notice that a learned Judge of this Court in JANAGAMA SHANKARAIAH V/s. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD[4] took a different view. A copy of the order dated 04.08.2010 passed in the said writ petition is placed on record. Having referred to the earlier Judgments in SMT.B.SHASIKALA2, YEMENI KUSUMA3 and M.KAVITHA1, the learned Judge observed as follows: “……… The power under Section 249(6) cannot be construed only as an action for suspension pending inquiry into the charges under Section 249(6) [sic, 249(1)] of the Act. ……… It need not necessarily be construed as an action only pending inquiry into the charges by framing charges under Section 249(1) of the Act ………” As the opinion expressed by the learned Judge reflected in the sentences extracted above runs contra to the view taken in the earlier three Judgments as to how sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 249 of the Act of 1994 are inter-related, it is desirable that this difference of opinion be resolved. Though the order passed in JANAGAMA SHANKARAIAH4 was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.611 of 2010, it is clear from a reading of the Order passed therein that this controversy was not brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench. This legal issue, being of wide import owing to the frequent exercise of powers under the subject provision, requires to be settled by an authoritative pronouncement of a division/larger bench. Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for necessary orders. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 10TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PGS/VGSR [1] 2010 (5) ALD 750 [2] W.P.No.24320 of 2009 dated 09.02.2010 [3] W.P.No.27009 of 2009 dated 29.04.2010 [4] W.P.No.14177 of 2010 dated 04.08.2010