HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.20491 of 2010 Date: August 18, 2010 Between: Smt. Mamidi Bhavani, W/o. Sri Mamidi- Appala Naidu, aged 26 years, Sarika Village, Vizianagaram Mandal, Vijzianagaram District … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Special Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and 3 others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Memo No.15333/Pts.II-A2/2010-2, dated 05-08-2010 rejecting the petitioner’s application for interim orders though the orders dt.28.6.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent is in contravention of Sec.249 of Panchayat Raj and against well established principles of law as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and consequently set aside the same by suspending the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.6.2010 pending disposal of appeal before the 1st respondent and to pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Sarika Gram Panchayat, Vizianagaram District in the elections held in the year 2005 and she has been continuing as such. While things stood thus, proceedings were initiated against her under Section 249(1) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) alleging that she misused her power as Sarpanch and committed several irregularities. It is also alleged that she awarded contracts in violation of the instructions and orders of the Government, on nomination basis and also misused the funds of the Gram Panchayat. After calling for the explanation of the petitioner, the District Collector, who is the competent authority, passed final order dated 28-06- 2010 in Rc.No.1367/08A2 removing her from the post of Sarpanch. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government as contemplated under Section 249(7) of the Act. The appellate authority, while fixing the date for hearing of the appeal on 04-10-2010, rejected interim relief sought by the petitioner by Memo No.15333/Pts.II- A2/2010-2, dated 05-08-2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the primary authority, i.e. the District Collector, has passed orders removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch without considering her explanation in a proper perspective and is carried away the report submitted by the District Panchayat Officer. In view of pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Collector dated 28-06-2010, it is not desirable to record any finding on the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As much as the appeal of the petitioner is pending before the first respondent-Government, it is for the Government to consider such plea of the petitioner while deciding the appeal. The appellate authority, taking note of the fact that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and are proved in the enquiry conducted, rejected interim relief. As much as the second respondent-District Collector recorded findings after coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has violated several Government orders and committed irregularities in the capacity of Sarpanch, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 05-08-2010, passed by the first respondent-Government, rejecting interim relief to the petitioner in the appeal filed by her against the order of the second respondent-District Collector dated 28-06-2010. It is stated that the appeal itself is posted for hearing on 04-10-2010. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent- appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner by hearing the same on 04-10-2010 or any other date, pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) August 18, 2010 MRR