THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8632 of 2010 April 19, 2010 Between: V.Seshu Kumar, S/o.Veerabhadra Rao … Petitioner And The District Collector, Panchayat Wing, East Godavari District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8632 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is Sarpanch of Narendrapuram Gram Panchayat. The District Panchayat Officer – the Collector (Panchayat Wing); issued proceedings Roc.No.3046/09-A2, dated 17.9.2009, withdrawing cheque-drawing powers of petitioners. The said order was passed considering the report of the second respondent that petitioner committed financial irregularities and misappropriated Gram Panchayat funds to a tune of Rs.3,48,000/-. The said order is assailed in this writ petition. Mr.Sri Nagesh, representing Mr.Ch.Dhanamjaya, the counsel for petitioner, submits that the impugned order was passed due to political vendetta without conducting enquiry. He also submits that under Section 249(6) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act), a Sarpanch can be placed under suspension only for a period of six months and, therefore, denying cheque-drawing power of petitioner beyond a period of six months is unsustainable and illegal. The submission is refuted by the Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The only ground pressed by the counsel for petitioner is the argument based on Section 249(6) of the Act. It deals with power of the District Collector to suspend a Sarpanch for a period of three months. It also deals with the power of Government to extend the period of suspension for such further period not exceeding three months. So, the total period of suspension shall not exceed six months. The same has no application to the controversy. The Government has promulgated Panchayat Finance Rules (the Rules) vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.1.1995. Rule 42 of the Rules empowers the District Panchayat Officer to withdraw cheque-drawing powers of Sarpanch. For ready reference, the same is extracted herein. 42. (1) The District Panchayat Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing prohibit by anorderany Sarpanch from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order. Provided that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the Sarpanch concerned. Provided further that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the Sarpanch not to draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat pending the exercise of his powers under this sub-rule. (2) Any Sarpanch aggrieved by an order passed by the District Panchayat Officer concerned under sub-rule (1) may prefer an appeal in writing to the District Collector concerned within seven days of the receipt of the order and the decision of the District Collector thereon shall be final. (3) Every order passed under sub-rule (1) shall specify the name of the person or the authority who shall draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat during the period during which the Sarpanch is prohibited from drawing such moneys. (4) A copy of every order passed under sub-rule (1) or sub- rule (2) shall be communicated to all banks and treasuries in which the moneys of the Gram Panchayat are lodged. (5) On and from the date of receipt of such order by any bank or treasury, no payment shall, for the period specified in such order, be made to the Sarpanch who is prohibited by such order from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat. The second proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules empowers District Panchayat Officer to pass an interim direction ordering Sarpanch not to draw moneys from the Gram Panchayat. In that view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is only a notice and petitioner can as well submit explanation to District Panchayat Officer. The same shall have to be considered and an order has to be passed under Rule 42(1) of the Rules. Without giving any representation or explanation, the present writ petition is filed relying o Section 249(6) of the Act, which has no application at all. The writ petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 19, 2010 YS