APHC010403792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) i A O u Sr- TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20666 OF 2025 Between: P Lakshmamma, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ.Sarpanch, Adavirajupalem Gram Panchayat, Gudur Mandal Adavirajupalem Village, Gudur Mandai, SPSR Nellore District. R/o D.No. 1-11, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, PVC ICON Building, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 5. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, SPSR Nellore,SPSR Nellore District. 6. The Extension Officer (PR and RD), Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 7. The Adavirajupalem Gram Panchayat, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary .Adavirajupalem Village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 8. A Prakasam, S/o Not Known to petitioner. Aged about.not known to petitioner, Adavirajupalem Village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. .. _ - . . Secretariat 9. A Chandrayya, S/o Not Known to petitioner. Aged about, not known to petitioner, Adavirajupalem Village, Gudur Mandal District. SPSR Nellore / ^ ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned orders vide R.O.C. No. 1105/2025-A1 09.07.2025 cancelling the cheque drawing power for a period of 6 months without considering my explanation, dated. 20.06.2025 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the G.G.Ms.No.30 rules of Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of 5 India and consequently set aside the impugned orders vide R.O.C. No. 1105/2025-A1, dated 09.07.2025. dated lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned orders vide R.O.C. No. 1105/2025-A1 09.07.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. dated Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI M SUDHIR (SC FOR ZPPS, MPPS & GP) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 & 9: — The Court made the following order: « • I • • • • X • • APHC010403792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NliVIMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20666/2025 [3329] Between; 1.P LAKSHMAMMA, W/0. NAGESWARA RAO YEARS GRAM AGED OCC.SARPANCH, GUDUR ABOUT ADAVIRAJUPALEM 49 PANCHAYAT, MANDAI, R/0 D.NO. 1-11, ADAVIRAJUPALEM VILLAGE, GUDUR MANDAI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PVC ICON BUILDING, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4.THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5.THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6.THE EXTENSION OFFICER PR AND RD, GUDUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7.THE ADAVIRAJUPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY .ADAVIRAJUPALEM VILLAGE, GUDUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 8.A PRAKASAM, S/0 NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER. AGED ABOUT.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, ADAVIRAJUPALEM VILLAGE, GUDUR MANUAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2 9.A CHANDRAYYA, S/0 NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER. AGED ABOUT. NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, ADAVIRAJUPALEM VILLAGE, GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): This Court made the following ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; “to issue a Writ, or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned orders vide R.O.C. No. 1105/2025-A1, dated 09.07.2025 cancelling the cheque drawing power for a period of 6 months without considering my explanation, dated. 20.06.2025 as illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to the G.G.Ms.No.30 rules of Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of 5 India and consequently set aside the impugned orders vide R.O.C. No. 1105/2025-A1, dated 09.07.2025 and pass 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department appearing for the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was elected as 3. the Sarpanch under the women category in the year 2021 for Adavirajupalem Village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, for a 3 period of five years, i.e., from 12.02.2021 to 12.02.2026. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging her duties diligently, without any complaint or blemish. While so, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the 4*^ respondent, i.e., the District Panchayat Officer, herein issued a show-cause notice dated 02.06.2025, alleging that the petitioner had withdrawn an amount from the bank without the knowledge of the respondent, i.e., the Panchayat Secretary. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 20.06.2025, clearly stating the reasons for the withdrawal of the amount as it was utilized for the ongoing development works within the Panchayat area and submitted that she is properly managing the Panchayat Raj funds. However, without considering the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4**^ respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 09.07.2025, restraining the petitioner from drawing power either Panchayat General funds or granted under 14*'^ and 15 th Finance Commission funds until further orders. Therefore, temporarily suspended the cheque drawing power of the petitioner against all related funds, including General/14th Finance/15th Finance/State funds, for a period of six months. . . - - 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though the petitioner had explained and addressed every allegation made in the show-cause notice, and had substantiated that no 4. misappropriation of funds was taken place, the respondent, without considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 20.06.2025, comprehensively and on the guise of self styled letter of the report of the 6^'^ respondent passed the impugned proceedings dated 09.07.2025 with a pre-determined mind is contrary to the settled law of enquiry. It is contended that the withdrawal of the cheque drawing power from the petitioner who is an elected representative in respect of Gram Panchayat funds is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.30 and the rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that, as per Rule 42(2), the impugned order is an appealable order before the 3'”'^ respondent, the District Collector. Since the petitioner is available an i.e. effective and efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way of an appeal before the 3rd respondent, it would be more appropriate to 5 direct the petitioner to avail the said statutory remedy, as held by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department appearing for the respondents and on perusal of the material available on record, to determine the issue it is appropriate to extract the Rules 42(1), (2), and (3) of the Grampanchayat Rules 1995, as under:- 6. “42(1) The District Panchayat Officer Concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any executive authority from drawing the moneys of the gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order: Provided that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the executive authority concerned. Provided further that the district Panchayat officer may issue an interim direction to the executive authority not to draw the moneys of the gram panchayat pending the exercise of his powers under this sub-rule. (2) Any executive authority aggrieved by an order passed by the district Panchayat officer 6 concerned under sub-rule (1), may prefer an appeal In writing to the district collector concerned within seven days of the receipt of the order and the decision of the district collector thereon shall be final. (3) Every order passed under sub-rule (1) shall specify the name of the person or the authority who shall draw the moneys of the Grampanchayat during the period during which the executive authority is prohibitedfrom drawing such moneys. (4) A copy of every order passed under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall be communicated to all banks and treasuries in which the moneys of the gram Panchayat are lodged. (5) On and from the date of receipt of such order by any bank or treasury, no payment shall for the period specified in such order be made to the executive authority who is prohibited by such order from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat. Since the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 is an appealable order, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said proceedings issued by the 4*'^ respondent by way of an appeal before the respondent and can agitate her defense and rights before the appellate authority, it is a settled principle of law that when a statutory alternative remedy by way of appeal is available, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any remedy or relief under 7. 7 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or without jurisdiction and it is contrary to law. In the present case, it is observed that the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 was passed after observing the principles of natural justice and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show- cause notice and also in accordance with law. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were duly adhered to. Whereas the 4^^^ respondent, i.e., the District Panchayat Officer, is empowered to withdraw/suspend the petitioner’s authority in drawing the Panchayat funds of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to 8. exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of either violation of the principles of natural justice or lack of competence on the part of the authority who passed the impugned orders. U \ 9. In view of the reasons stated above and considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, this court is of the considered opinion that, the present writ petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy 8 before the 3'^^ respondent by preferring an appeal within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such appeal being filed, the 3'^ respondent shall consider the same after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner well as to other stakeholders, if any, in accordance with law and dispose of the appeal at the earliest, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the appeal. In the meanwhile, status quo obtaining as on today with regard to the drawing of Gram Panchayat funds shall be maintained till the completion of the period noted in the impugned proceedings or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. as 10. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department District. 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, PVC ICON Building, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Neliore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Secretariat Building, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur 5. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, SPSR Nellor^PSR Nellore District. 6. The Extension Officer PR and RD, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, ^^davirajupalem Gram Panchayat, Adavirajupalem Village, Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 8. One CC to Sri Thanjavuru Venkata Suman Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri M Sudhir (SC for ZPPS, MPPS & GP) Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20666 OF 2025 n SEr 2025 ^ . Current Section . a: DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS