IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 26504 of 2008 Between: Smt. Swarna Geetha W/o. Venkateswarlu Podili Gram Panchayat & Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer Prakasam District Ongole. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Prakasam Ongole. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or orders more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the actions of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings vide ROC.No.1543/2008(P)/A2, dt.17-11-2008 issued by the 1st respondent withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue the cheque drawing power to the appellant under Rule-40 of GO.Ms.No.30 dt.20-01-1995 by suspending the impugned proceedings ROC.No.1543/2008(P)/A2, dt.17-11-2008 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 26504 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, and with their consent, the writ petition itself is disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner’s grievance relates to withdrawal of his cheque drawing powers, under Rule 40 of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 02-01-1995 vide proceedings dated 17-11-2008, by the District Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is said to have preferred an appeal to the District Collector on 22-11-2008, which he claims to be still pending. Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would take this Court through the order impugned in the appeal in respect of his contention that out of 12 charges, the petitioner was held guilty of only three charges, that too along with the Panchayat Secretary. Learned counsel would state that the petitioner has not been found guilty of the charge of misappropriation of funds or misuse of his cheque drawing power. He would also state that, in similar circumstances, when action was sought to be taken to have him removed from the Office of Sarpanch on the very same charges, the petitioner had invoked this Court’s jurisdiction and that this Court had granted interim stay. Unlike the order under challenge in the earlier writ petition, the order in this case does not result in cessation of the petitioner holding Office as Sarpanch. While he is entitled to exercise all powers which a Sarpanch has, restrictions are being placed only with regards exercise of his cheque drawing powers. While the merits of the case may have necessitated further examination, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner has already elected the remedy of appeal to the District Collector prescribed under the Rules and for the very same relief, he cannot simultaneously invoke two independent and separate remedies. Ends of justice would, therefore, be met if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is at liberty to file another copy of his appeal to the second respondent along with the order of this Court. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:04-12-2008 usd