IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 22202 of 2008 BETWEEN: K. Komala, W/o. K. Damodaram, Karvetinagaram Gram Panchayat, R/o. Karvetinagaram, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 Dr. P.V. Sesha Reddy, Divisional Panchayat Officer-Cum-District Panchayat Officer (FAC), Chittoor District, Chittoor. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order Rc.No.2028/2007/A4 (Pts) dt. 16-9-2008 from the ﬁle of the 2nd Respondent and after perusing the same quash the said order dt. 16-9-2008 by declaring it as arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law and with all other consequential beneﬁts and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, being the Sarpanch of Karvetinagaram Gram Panchayat, Chittoor District, ﬁled the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the District Panchayat Oﬃcer (FAC), Chittoor District in Rc.No.2028/2007/A4 (Pts) dated 16.09.2008. 2. Under the said proceedings, the District Panchayat Oﬃcer called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,76,711/- to the credit of the Karvetinagaram Gram Panchayat account. The said proceedings were issued on the alleged ground that the petitioner had spent the said amount contrary to the Government rules. The failure of the petitioner to deposit the said sum as per the impugned proceedings, empowered the respondents to recover the said sum from her under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and also initiate proceedings under the provisions of Section 249 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. The aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition would show that the petitioner seeks to assail the correctness of the impugned proceedings on its merits. The only ground alleged by the petitioner, which is at least remotely amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that the very same Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer, Chittoor District having submitted his remarks, acted upon the same in the capacity of the District Panchayat Officer (Full Additional Charge) and passed the impugned proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such an action would be violative of the principles of natural justice. Though the petitioner has impleaded the District Panchayat Oﬃcer (Full Additional Charge) as the fourth respondent in the writ petition, no allegation is made against the said Oﬃcer that he is personally interested in the matter. Merely because he has discharged his functions in dual oﬃcial capacities in the same matter, it cannot be construed that he acted mala fide. 5. This Court is not prepared to venture into the merits of the case and adjudicate as to whether the petitioner is due and liable to pay the sum as demanded under the impugned proceedings. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to invoke the alternative remedies available to her under the Act, which would not only be more comprehensive but also more suitable for resolving the issues sought to be raised in the present writ petition. 6. As the time granted under the impugned proceedings for making the deposit has already expired and as the petitioner apprehends that coercive measures may be initiated for recovering the said sum, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be suﬃciently met by staying the operation of the impugned proceedings dated 16.09.2008 for a period of four weeks from today so as to enable the petitioner to invoke such alternative remedies as may be available to her in law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J October 10, 2008 DSK