IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1473 AND 1673 OF 2008 WRIT APPEAL No.1473 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/10/2008 in WP NO : 19060 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Garine Sridhar S/o. Koteswar Rao R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 Pasupuleti Guravaiah S/o. Venkaiah R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3 Ramprasad Reddy S/o. Hanuma Reddy R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 Anugula Jayamma W/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5 B. Sriramulu S/o. Parvathalu R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6 Nemmani Venkataiah S/o. Hanumanthu R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7 Chirra Srinivasu S/o. Yellaiah R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 8 Edamma W/o. Sarabandi R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. 9 K. Padma W/o. Satyam R/o. Munagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Ganna Venkatarama Narasaiah S/o. G. Mallaiah R/o. Vijayaraghavapuram, Munagal Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P. Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj AND WRIT APPEAL NO : 1673 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/10/2008 in WP NO : 21746 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Garine Sridhar S/o.Koteswar Rao R/o.Munagal Mandal, Nalgonda District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Ganna Venkatarama Narasaiah S/o.G.Mallaiah R/o.Vijayaraghavapuram, Munagal Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary Panchayat Raj Department, AP. Secretariat, Secretariat building Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda District 4 The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Praishad, Nalgonda. 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL Nos.1473 and 1673 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. Both the Writ Appeals W.A.Nos.1473 and 1673 of 2008 are directed against the common order, dated 29.10.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition Nos.19060 and 21746 of 2008, respectively. 3. Since both the Writ Appeals are inter-related and are filed challenging the common order passed in the said two writ petitions, with the consent of both the parties, they are being disposed of by this common judgment, at the stage of admission itself. 4. Appellant in W.A.Nos.1473 and 1673 is respondent No.4 and 5 in W.P.Nos.19060 and 21746 of 2008, respectively, in W.A.No.1473 of 2008, appellant Nos.2 to 9 are respondent Nos.5 to 12 in W.P.No.19060 of 2008, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are respondent Nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.19060 of 2008, and in W.A.No.1673 of 2008, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.21746 of 2008 and respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals is the writ petitioner, in both the said writ petitions. 5. In both the Writ Appeals, the controversy revolves around the no-confidence motion moved against the respondent No.1 herein. 6. We do not propose to go into the details of the case, inasmuch as, the learned single Judge had gone into the merits of the case elaborately, both on facts and law, and, eventually, held the entire proceedings of no- confidence motion, initiated against the respondent No.1 herein-writ petitioner, to be illegal and consequent thereto, his removal from the office of the President of Mandal Parishad was also held to be illegal. 7. At this stage, Sri Y.Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the appellant wants to avail the opportunity accorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned order i.e., the liberty to move no-confidence motion against the respondent No.1 herein again, which is, actually, barred under the proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 245 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. 8. Therefore, in view of the effective alternative remedy available to the appellant, as has been accorded by the learned single Judge, in the impugned order, we feel it inexpedient to go any further into the merits of the case. 9. In view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and more particularly, in the light of the effective alternative remedy available to the appellant, as has been accorded by the learned single Judge, in the impugned order, nothing remains for adjudication in the present Writ Appeals. 10. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals are disposed of, confirming the impugned common order, passed by the learned single Judge, in the said writ petitions. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 17th December 2008 DR .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P. Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Nalgonda District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 5 2 CCS to Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 6 2CD copies