IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18573 of 2008 Between: Smt. Sudha Rajeshwar, Gram Panchayat, Medchal, Medchal Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary for Panchayat Raj, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At Lakdikapool Hyderabad. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District East. 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District East .....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 an order or writ more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the Respondent No. 2 passed in ﬁle No. B2/3509/2007 dt. 22- 8-2008 as null and void and against principles of natural justice and not sustainable in the eye of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.SHIVA KUMAR GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18573 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is the elected Sarpanch of Medchal Gram Panchayat. By proceedings dated 22-08- 2008, passed by the second respondent under Section 249(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), the petitioner herein was removed from the oﬃce of Sarpanch. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal under Section 249(2) of the Act on 29-08-2008 along with an application seeking suspension of the order dated 22-08-2008. Though the said appeal was entertained by the ﬁrst respondent, no orders have been passed on his application for suspension. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the order passed by the second respondent dated 22-08-2008 is arbitrary and illegal. Since the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy of appeal and the matter is pending before the ﬁrst respondent, who is the Appellate Authority, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case and express any opinion as to the various contentions raised by the petitioner. Instead, keeping in view of the allegation of the petitioner that the ﬁrst respondent has failed to pass orders on the application of the petitioner for suspension, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for suspension of the impugned order dated 22-08-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today as to the impugned order dated 22-08-2008 shall be maintained. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 27-08-2008 KLP