THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.Nos. 646 and 77 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are disposed of by a common order in view of the commonality of questions of fact and questions of law involved in these both matters. 2. Bollam Balaiah, writ petitioner, filed writ petition No.646 of 2009 praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent-District Collector (PR), Nalgonda District in issuing impugned proceedings No.1746/07-B(Pts.) dated 6.01.2009 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other suitable orders. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 3. Writ Petition No.77 of 2009 filed by the same petitioner praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.No. 1950, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS.II) Department, dated 29.12.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other suitable orders. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit in detail also had been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. The petitioner had been elected as Sarpanch of Nidamanuru Panchayat under B.C. Reservation in the elections held in the year 2006. It is stated that the second respondent got issued a show cause notice dated 11.1.2008 to which the petitioner submitted explanation on 20.02.2008. It is also stated that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent passed an order No.1746/07-B1, dated 7.3.2008 for removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. It is also stated that the second respondent passed orders in G.O.Rt. No.671 dated 5.5.2008. Further, it is stated that the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2008 in G.O.Rt. No.1950 without considering the explanation. Hence, this writ petition had been filed. 6. On a careful reading of the order under challenge, no doubt the historical background of the litigation had been narrated in detail and certain reasons had been recorded and the matter had been disposed of. In the counter affidavit filed several facts had been narrated. These aspects need not detain this court any further for the reason that the first respondent observed at Para Nos. 10,11, and 12, as hereunder: "Government have gone through the connected records and it is on record that the petitioner has been provided ample opportunity by the District Collector (PW) before passing the impugned orders by issuing show cause notice. On verification of records, it was revealed that the petitioner without following the laid down procedure and rules has incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,31,782/- irregularly and also amply proved that the petitioner has not adhered to the procedures before utilizing the precious Gram Panchayat Funds. The records shown that all the vouchers and bills produced by the petitioner have been properly and thoroughly got verified by the District Collector (PW) before passing the impugned orders and found that petitioner has misused an amount of Rs.3,31,782/- of Gram Panchayat funds and the same is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. Government after careful consideration of the material found that there is no any illegality, irregularity in the orders passed by the District Collector (PW), Nalgonda in removing the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch and ordering for recovery of the amount referred to above from the petitioner. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. The District Collector (PW) Nalgonda is hereby requested to take further necessary action in the matter accordingly." 7. The grounds of appeal, the explanation submitted to the show cause and other material had been pointed out and submissions in elaboration had been made that these reasons which had been recorded by the first respondent cannot be said to be sufficient reasons and at the best it is contended that the said order cannot be said to be a speaking order in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances. Certain further submissions were made that in spite of certain interim orders, at present Upa Sarpanch had been made as incharge Sarpanch. This court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to these aspects. Be that as it may, on careful analysis of the whole factual matrix and the complete material placed before this court, this court is satisfied that the first respondent had not recorded sufficient reasons and hence the impugned order cannot be said to be a speaking order. Let the first respondent reconsider the issue after perusing all the records and make an order in accordance with law. Till then status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. Let the first respondent dispose of the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Writ petition No.77 of 2009 is allowed to the extent indicated above and writ petition No.646 of 2009 is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Sri Vidya Prashanth representing Sri C. Venkat Yadav would point out that despite some interim orders, by wrong interpretation, the Upa Sarpanch was permitted to take charge and at present Upa Sarpanch is discharging his duties. This court is not inclined to express any further opinion relating to this aspect. ______________ P.S.NARAYANA,J 05-08-2009 Stp