IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2157 of 2009 Between: Smt. N.V.S.Lakshmi, W/o. N.V.S. Badrinadh, R/o. Pamidi Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep its Secretary, Panchayatraj Department Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (PAnchayat Wing) Ananthapur District at Ananthapur. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Ananthapur District at Ananthapur. 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Ananthapur District at Ananthapur .....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 direction or Writ especially Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to Proc.No.857/2008/A5 dated 19-1-2009 on the file of 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and high handed one. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Pamidi Gram Panchayat, Anantapur District, in the year 2006. A show cause notice, dated 02.01.2009, under sub-section (6) of Section 249 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was issued, alleging certain irregularities. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating, inter alia, that the show cause notice itself is without jurisdiction, since it was issued by the District Panchayat Officer. The works mentioned in the proceedings were of the value below Rs.50,000/-, for which the tender system was dispensed with, and for that there is an Executive Authority of the Gram Panchayat, namely, the Secretary. The Collector, i.e. the second respondent herein, passed an order, dated 19.01.2009, placing the petitioner under suspension for a period of three months, pending enquiry into the proceedings. The Upa Sarpanch was placed In- charge. The petitioner states that she filed a revision before the first respondent, together with an application for stay and no orders have been passed thereon. She ultimately, challenges the very proceedings, dated 19.01.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for Upa Sarpanch, who does not figure as a party. The petitioner had already approached the first respondent by filing a revision. It is stated that notice was ordered in the application for stay. Having regard to the fact that the suspension itself is for a limited period, any delay in this regard, is likely to have its own impact. Prima facie, this Court finds that the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice itself is without jurisdiction, since it was issued by the District Panchayat Officer, deserves consideration. The matter needs to be verified on merits also, with reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Ends of justice would be met, if the impugned order is suspended, pending the revision filed by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the order, dated 19.01.2009, issued by the second respondent shall remain suspended, pending the revision filed by the petitioner before the first respondent and the petitioner shall be entitled to continue as Sarpanch. The first respondent shall consider the feasibility of disposing of the revision itself within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06.02.2009. GJ