IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 23392 of 2007 Between: Polepally Laxmaiah S/o. Saidulu Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj Government of Andhra Pradesh,. Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nalgonda District Nalgonda. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda Nalgonda District. 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Miryalaguda Division, Nalgonda District. 5 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Miryalaguda Mandal , Nalgonda 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 Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 10700/CPR&RE/D1/2007 dt. 26-9-2007 of 1st Respondent in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the proceedings No. 251/07- B1(Pancha) dt. 9-7-2007 of 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 apart from being in gross violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings No. 251/07- B1(Pancha) dt 9-7-2007 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.23392 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gudur Village, Miryalaguda Mandal of Nalgonda District. The 2nd respondent herein passed an order dated 9.7.2007 under Section 249 (7) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) thereby removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch of Gudur Village on the ground that the petitioner had committed irregularities in fixing up the upset price of fish tank apart from certain other irregularities in the administration of Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent which was also dismissed by order dated 26.9.2007 thereby confirming the order of removal. Hence, this writ petition. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 26.9.2007 which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as directed by this Court in W.P.No.15548 of 2007 is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the impugned order being a non-speaking order is ex facie illegal. A mere perusal of the impugned order dated 26.9.2007 shows that except extracting the operative portion of the order of this Court in the earlier writ petition, the 1st respondent failed to refer to the alleged irregularities against the petitioner or his explanation much less there was any consideration whether the findings recorded by the 2nd respondent were justifiable and based on record. The law is well-settled that absence of reasons which result in violation of the principles of natural justice is one of the grounds for exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the impugned order dated 26.9.2007 which on the face of it is a non- speaking order, is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents and thereafter pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. Since pending appeal before the 1st respondent, the order of this Court in W.P.No.15548 of 2007 was in operation, it is made clear that the same arrangement in terms of the order of this Court in W.P.No.15548 of 2007 shall continue till fresh orders are passed by the 1st respondent. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.06.2008 gbs