HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17689 of 2010 Dated: 16-08-2010 Between: Lanka Raja Reddy. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Spl. Chief Secretary, Panchayatraj and Rural Development (PTS.II) Department & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17689 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is Upa-Sarpanch of Chanda-T Grampanchayat in Adilabad Mandal and District, has filed this writ petition, questioning the order, dated 14th July 2010, issued by the Government in Memo No.15592/PTS.II/A1/2010-1. Respondent No.5 is the Sarpanch of Chanda-T Grampanchayat in Adilabad Mandal and District. On the complaint made by the petitioner herein and the Ward members of the said Grampanchayat, proceedings were initiated against the 5th respondent by the Collector (Panchayat Wing), Adilabad, under Section 249(1) of the A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994. Alleging that he has committed certain irregularities, the Collector, in exercise of powers under Section 249(6) of the Act, passed orders, dated 11th June 2010, in Proceedings No.383/K5.Pts/2009, suspending the 5th respondent from the office of Sarpanch for a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order. It is stated that the petitioner, who is Upa-Sarpanch of the said Grampanchayat and who has taken charge as Sarpanch pursuant to the orders of the Collector, filed a caveat petition before the Government, stating that in case if any revision is filed by the 5th respondent against the orders of Collector, he should be heard. It is the grievance of the petitioner that inspite of such a caveat is sent to the 5th respondent and also filed before the Government, the revisional authority, without issuing any notice to him, passed orders, dated 14.07.2010, in Memo No.15592/PTS.II/A1/2010-1, suspending the orders of the Collector, dated 11.06.2010. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of the caveat already filed by the petitioner before the Government, the revisional authority ought not to have passed any interim orders without notice to him. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the proceedings, as he was not even a party before the revisional authority, as such, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the Government. A perusal of the order, dated 11.06.2010, passed in Proceedings No.383/K5.Pts/2009 by the Collector (Panchayat Wing), itself indicate that the said order is passed based on the representation of the petitioner and other Ward Members of the Grampanchayat. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that he is not a necessary party to the proceedings. As the proceedings are initiated on the representation filed by the petitioner and other Ward Members of the Grampanchayat, the petitioner should have been made a party-respondent in the revision filed by the 5th respondent. As much as it is stated that the petitioner has already filed a caveat petition and this Court, by order, dated 23rd July 2010, suspended the order of the Government, dated 14.07.2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the order, dated 14.07.2010, with a direction to the revisional authority to dispose of the interim application or the main revision itself, as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today, by issuing notice of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent. It is further declared that the petitioner herein stands impleaded as party-respondent in the revision petition pending before the Government. Writ Petition is disposed of, subject to the above directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th August 2010 N.B: Furnish C.C. in two days. (b/o) ajr