IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.229 OF 2011 DATED:12.1.2011 Between: Kadari Anjaiah … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to the Pancayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.229 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dt.22.12.2010 of the District Collector, Nalgonda, through which the said officer directed that a sum of Rs.5,82,231/- be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner is Ex-sarpanch of Konda Mallepally Village of Devarakonda Mandal. The above impugned order has been passed on the premise that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,82,231/-. It is also seen that earlier the petitioner was found to have misappropriated Rs.17,68,400/-, but on certain orders passed by the Government and certain verifications carried out, it was found that the petitioner has misappropriated Rs.5,82,231/- and by the impugned order that was ordered to be recovered from him. Section 265(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) provides for such recovery. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 135 of the Act and certain other documents to show that the petitioner cannot be held liable even for the amount of Rs.5,82,231/- and he raised several pleas which fall within the ambit of disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court. It should be noted that Section 265(3) of the Act provides an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should pursue the remedy of appeal before the Government so that all the disputed questions of fact raised by him can be gone into by the appellate authority. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that pursuant to the impugned order dt.22.12.2010 of the District Collector, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Devarakonda, has issued notice dt.6.1.2011 informing the petitioner that certain property of the petitioner has been taken possession by way of attachment and that further steps will be taken to sell it to recover the amount. The petitioner says that it may take four weeks for him to file appeal and till then all further proceedings may be stayed. This request of the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable. Accordingly, all further steps pursuant to the notice dt.6.1.2011 shall be stayed for a period of four weeks and if in the meanwhile the petitioner does not file any appeal within that period, the authorities are at liberty to take further steps pursuant to the notice dt.6.1.2011 subject to the orders of the appellate authority. ____________________ (N. RAVI SHANKAR, J) 12.1.2011 bnr Note: Issue C.C. by 13.1.2011. (B.O) bnr