IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3406 of 2009 Between: Puli Venkateswaramma W/o. Puli Madhava rAo Gram Panchayat, Nelakurru, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District, R/o.Nelakurru, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Panchayat Officer, Krishna, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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(s) particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein in divesting the powers of the petitioner as Sarpanch of Nelakurru Gram Panchayat vide proceedings R.O.C.No.2911/2008 P2, dated 23.12.2008 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Nelakurru Gram Panchayat. Through his proceedings dated 23.12.2008, the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna at Machilipatnam, the respondent, has taken away the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner, in exercise of power under Rule 42 of the Rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1990. The petitioner contends that she was not issued any show cause notice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The respondent made a reference to Rule 41 of the Rules. However, the correct provision is Rule 42. Sub-rule (1) confers power upon the respondent to prohibit the Executive Authority from drawing monies, from the Gram Panchayat. Proviso to that rule clearly states that before passing any order under sub-rule (1), an opportunity of making representation shall be given to the Executive Authority i.e Sarpanch. There is no reference to such notice, much less to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Though the second proviso permits prohibition against cheque drawing powers, as an interim measure, the impugned order does not disclose that the measure indicated in it is a temporary one. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the restriction imposed by the respondent to the petitioner, is set aside. It is directed that the impugned proceedings, including the operative portion, shall be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit her explanation within a period of 15 days from today. It shall be open to the respondent to pass fresh orders, on consideration of the explanation. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20.02.2009. Note:Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ