IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15444 of 2008 Between: Smt. N.Madhuri W/o Sri N. Venkatesh Keesara Gram Panchayat, Ranga reddy Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Ranga Reddy District at Kharitabad, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order in file NO. 4110/2007-B.1(Panchayat) dated 15-7-2008 issued by the Respondent removing petitioner from the office of Sarpanch, Keesara Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Principles of natural justice and pass such further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 : Smt. S. Nanda The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.15444 OF 2008 ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5, who got themselves impleaded. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 1st respondent – District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Rangareddy District, dated 15.7.2008 under which the petitioner herein was removed from the office of Sarpanch in exercise of powers under Section 249 (1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as arbitrary and illegal. At the outset, it is to be noted that against the order impugned an alternative remedy of appeal is available before the Government under sub-section (7) of Section 249 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’) and therefore without exhausting the said remedy the petitioner cannot straightaway invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the copies of enquiry reports were not furnished to the petitioner, the impugned order was in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the availability of alternative remedy is not a bar. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition on that ground since it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the alleged irregularities were virtually admitted by the petitioner. In the circumstances , I am of the opinion that the said issue also requires consideration by the appellate authority and accordingly the said contention is left open to be agitated in the Appeal. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the alternative remedy of appeal provided under sub-section (7) of Section 249 of the Act. No costs. However, keeping in view that the impugned order was served on the petitioner only on 16.7.2008 (yesterday) and that the petitioner claims that she is continuing in the office as on today, it is made clear that the impugned order shall not be given effect to for a period of one week from today. In the meanwhile, it is open to the petitioner to work out the alternative remedy. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 17.07.2008 gbs Note:- CC by tomorrow. (B/O) gbs