IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.7187 of 2008 Between: Pilli Surya Kumari W/o.Satyanarayana Sarpavaram Gram Panchayat, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry East Godavari 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings Roc.No.747/2007/A2, dated 24.3.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, against the principles of natural justice and in violation of provisions of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.SARVOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.7187 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner was an elected sarpanch of Sarpavaram Gram Panchyat. She filed this writ petition questioning the order 24.03.2008, passed by the first respondent-District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari, whereby she was removed from the office of sarpanch on the allegation of misappropriation of funds of the Gram Panchayat. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently tried to impress upon this court stating that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is without affording sufficient opportunity to her. He further stated that in fact, the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount of the Gram Panchayat, however, the said aspect was not at all considered by the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, justifying the impugned order, submitted that after considering all the aspects, the impugned order was passed. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law. Section 249 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (for short “the Act”) deals with powers of the Government to remove Sarpanch, President or Chairman, etc. According to Sub-section (4) of Section 249 of the Act, if the District Collector is satisfied that any elected member of the Gram Panchyat or the Government is satisfied that any elected member of a Mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad is guilty of any misconduct while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties, or in the performance of the functions, under this Act, the District Collector or as the case may be, the Government may, by order, remove such member, after giving him an opportunity for explanation, and any member so removed shall not be eligible for re-election as a member for a period of two years from the date of removal. Against the order passed under Sub-section (4) of Section 249 of the Act, an appeal lies to the Government under sub- section (7) of Section 249 of the Act, within thirty days of such order. As the said order removing the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch was passed on 24.03.2008, the petitioner has time to prefer an appeal till 24.04.2008. Therefore, when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy, this writ petition is not maintainable. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal is already preferred by the petitioner before the fourth respondent-Government, but no orders have yet been passed thereon. In the light of the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent-Government to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 09.04.2008 sh To 1 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, at Kakinada. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajahmundry East Godavari District. 4 2CCs to 5 2CD copies