THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1048 OF 2009 Dt. 19.8.2009 Between G. Venkatesh Goud … Appellant And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1048 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Anil R. Dave) The appellant – original petitioner, Sarpanch of Bondugula Village, Rajapet Mandal, Nalgonda District, was removed from the post of Sarpanch by virtue of an order dt.2.1.2008. Being aggrieved by the said order of removal, the appellant had filed an appeal before respondent No.1. The said appeal was dismissed on 12.2.2009. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellate authority, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.6609 of 2009 wherein, by way of interim relief, it was prayed that the appellant be continued as Sarpanch during the pendency of the petition. The aforestated prayer made in W.P.M.P. No.8645 of 2009 has been rejected and being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. Upon perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, we find that though ample opportunity was given to the appellant, he did not represent his case and did not produce material to support his case before the first appellate authority. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge did not grant any interim relief because granting of interim relief would have amounted to allowing the petition at interlocutory stage. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the matter should be remanded and a fresh enquiry should be made. In our opinion, such a prayer cannot be granted. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, which does not require any interference, because any interference with the said order would amount to allowing the petition at this stage. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The learned Advocate for the appellant has fairly submitted, at this stage, that Writ Petition No.6609 of 2009 be directed to be listed for hearing at an early date. The said request is reasonable. We are sure that if an application is made by the appellant/petitioner for expeditious hearing of the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge would consider the same and pass an appropriate order for giving priority to hearing of the petition. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _______________________ C. V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19.8.2009 bnr