THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4057 of 2011 Date:21.02.2011 Between: Smt. Rachuri Vimala ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M. Adam Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 31.12.2010 of respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was removed from the office of Sarpanch. At the hearing, Sri M. Adam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that though his client has statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 249 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), as his client was not given proper opportunity by respondent No.1 before issuing the impugned proceedings, he has filed the present writ petition. In my opinion, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted because it is not in dispute that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he has submitted his explanation. Thus, this is not a case of no notice. Whether the petitioner was given proper opportunity or not needs to be examined by the appellate authority and on this plea alone, the petitioner cannot be permitted to bye- pass the statutory remedy of appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 249(7) of the Act. The petitioner shall be free to raise all legally permissible grounds including the one relating to the inadequate opportunity to her by respondent No.1. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.5014 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st February, 2011 GHN