THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7448 of 2010 .04.2010 Between: Peddagani Kalavathi ….Petitioner AND The District Panchayat Officer, Warangal, Warangal Dist And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.7448 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Thorruru village in West Godavari District in August, 2006. Second respondent conducted enquiry into the affairs of Gram Panchayat. A report was submitted to first respondent. Based on the same, first respondent issued show cause notice alleging many acts of malfeasance and misfeasance. These include incurring expenditure contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity), expenditure incurred without valid vouchers/receipts, expenditure without authority for unauthorized items of expenditure etc. First respondent called upon petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against petitioner in accordance with the Act. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. Thereafter, first respondent passed order dated 25.02.2010 withdrawing cheque drawing powers of Sarpanch for a period of three months duly transferring the said power to Extension Officer (Panchayat Raj) counter signed by Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. The Rules relating to Certain Taxes and Other Lodging of Moneys Received by the Gram Panchayat and Payment of Moneys from the Gram Panchayat Fund (Finance Rules, for brevity) promulgated by Notification vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995 deal with finances and expenditure of Gram Panchayat. Rule 42 (1) of Finance Rules empowers District Panchayat Officer to withdraw the cheque drawing powers of Sarpanch. An appeal is provided under Rule 42(2) of Finance Rules. It is an effective alternative remedy. The counsel for petitioner does not seriously dispute this legal position. He, however, submits that under Rule 42(1) of Finance Rules, first respondent can withdraw cheque drawing powers only for the reasons to be recorded and as the impugned order is bereft of reasons, the same is unsustainable and alternative remedy is not a bar. He placed reliance on Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v Union of India[1], M/s.Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v State of U.P.,[2], M/s.Travancore Rayons Limited v the Union of India[3] and Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v Jagdish Sharan Varshney[4]. First respondent issued a show cause notice alleging innumerable number of acts of malfeasance and misfeasance on the part of petitioner. Petitioner submitted explanation. Finding that the explanation is not satisfactory, first respondent exercised power under Rule 42(1) of Finance Rules. Reading a show cause notice and impugned order together, it cannot be said that the impugned order is bereft of reasons. Therefore, if petitioner alleges the improper exercise of powers by first respondent, it is a matter for appeal before District Collector. The petitioner can place all the receipts, sanctioned estimates, M.B.Books and seek exoneration. When large number of questions of facts are involved, the High Court cannot ignore the available alternative remedy and entertain the writ petition. The approach of the High Court to entertain writ petition ignoring the effective, speedy and efficacious alternative remedy would not be proper. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in Salam Khan v Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Chennai[5] considered this matter in detail. Chief Justice Markandey Katju (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench made the following observations which are apt. No doubt, alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the filing of writ petitions, but at the same time it is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and when there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court. Entertaining writ petitions straight away without insisting that a party should first avail of the alternative remedy is an over liberal approach which has caused immense difficulties to the High Courts in the country because they have added to the huge arrears. The Courts have already become overburdened by this over liberal approach instead of following the settled legal principle that a writ petition should ordinarily be dismissed if there is an alternative remedy. The High Courts in India are already tottering and reeling under the burden of massive arrears which have flooded the dockets of the Court, and such kind of over liberal approach has only multiplied this problem manifold. If this approach is further continued a time will surely come when the High Courts will find it impossible to function. All this has happened because unfortunately some Courts have departed from well settled legal principles. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The decisions cited by petitioner dealt with the question of appellate authority/revisional authority recording reasons are not relevant at this stage. The petitioner can as well urge the same ground before the District Collector and seek redressal. Further, withdrawal of cheque drawing power itself is for a period of three months, therefore, it is not an exceptional case for interference ignoring the alternative remedy. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .04.2010 Pln [1] AIR 1966 SC 671 [2] AIR 1970 SC 1302 [3] AIR 1971 SC 862 [4] (2009) 4 SCC 240 [5] AIR 2005 Mad 241