IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19326 OF 2009 Between: D. Ramesh S/o. Ramulu ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Ranga Reddy District & 3 others .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.19326 OF 2009 ORDER: On 11-09-2009, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had taken notice on behalf of the respondents and requested time to get instructions. 2. It is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj that since the report has been called for, the stay petition could not be disposed of, though an application for stay had been filed along with the statutory appeal. The same is recorded. 3. Mrs. S. Nanda, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, had taken this Court through the order under challenge and also further would maintain that respondent No.1 had not applied his mind at all independently, but just relied on the report of respondent No.2, the Divisional Panchayat Officer. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on a decision of this court in REKAPALLI KRISHNA VASU v. STATE OF A.P. & OTHERS[1]. 4. The Writ Petition is filed for declaring the action of respondent No.4 in not passing any order on the stay petition filed along with the appeal seeking to set aside the proceedings of respondent No.1 in Procs. No.3263/2008 B2 (Pts) dated 27-09-2008, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such other suitable orders. 5. It is stated that the writ petitioner had been elected as Sarpanch of Kondapur Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in 2006. One ex-ward member, who is presently working as Upa-Sarpanch of the Kondapur Gram Panchayat, to come into power in a mala fide manner, influenced the official respondents and on 27-09-2008, respondent No.3 issued orders withdrawing the writ petitioner’s cheque power. A show cause notice dated 01-12-2008 was issued against the petitioner alleging nine (9) charges against him, to which he submitted his detailed explanation on 05-02-2009. Respondent No.1, vide impugned order dated 31-08-2009 removed the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. It is stated that challenging the same, an appeal was filed before respondent No.4 along with an application for grant of stay and since no orders had been passed on the stay application, this writ petition had been filed. 6. The submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj had already been recorded above. 7. In the decision referred supra, REKAPALLI KRISHNA VASU’s case, it was observed: “It is apparent on record that the District Collector endorsed the conclusions arrived by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. No reasons are assigned by the District Collector in drawing the conclusions that the 6th respondent misappropriated Gram Panchayat Funds. A detailed explanation has been submitted by the 6th respondent to the show-cause notice. The order passed by the District Collector does not speak as to how the explanation offered by the 6th respondent was found to be insufficient. In such a situation, the only reasonable conclusion is that the District Collector has been simply carried away with remarks submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer and the impugned order is not the outcome of his own opinion. What is required under Section 249(1) of the Act is that the District Collector has to form his own opinion on application of mind to the material on record. A similar question has come up for consideration in W.P. No.23758 of 2004 dated 17-2-2005. Wherein it is observed as follows: “On a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Sarpanch can be removed when the District Collector is of the opinion that the same is necessary for any one of the five grounds specified under sub-section (1) of Section 249 of the Act. Undoubtedly formation of such opinion by the District Collector must be based on application of mind to the material on record and the same shall be apparent from the order itself. In the case on hand, the 2nd respondent failed to assign any reasons in support of his conclusion that the petitioner has misused her powers vested under the Act, but merely relied on the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, dated 9-8-2004 stating that all the charges are held proved. In the absence of recording any reasons, it cannot be held that the 2nd respondent has applied his mind to the charges leveled against the petitioner or his explanation”.” 8. Further, it is brought to the notice of the Court that at present, the Upa-Sarpanch had taken charge of the Sarpanch. It is no doubt true that respondent No.1 is expected to record findings after due application of mind while exercising quasi judicial powers. 9. Be that as it may, since it is stated that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.4, let respondent No.4 dispose of the appeal itself especially in the light of the view expressed by this Court in the decision referred supra within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order without granting any further adjournments whatsoever in this regard. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 15, 2009. NOTE: Furnish C.C. of the order within two (2) days. (B/O) PV [1] 2005(5) ALD 276