APHC010442702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22456/2025 Between: 1. I LAKSHMI CHANDRIKA, W/O. SRINIVASA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC.SARPANCH, R/O. PANDITHAVILLURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, KODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHEEMAVARAM. 4. PANDITAVILLURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY OFFICER, PANDITAVILLURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 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 topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 3603/A3/2024 dated 01-07-2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and the consequential proceedings in Roc. No. A4/81603/2024 dated 14 respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of th IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 22456/2025 I LAKSHMI CHANDRIKA, W/O. SRINIVASA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC.SARPANCH, R/O. PANDITHAVILLURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, KODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHEEMAVARAM. PANDITAVILLURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANDITAVILLURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, PODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 3603/A3/2024 2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and the consequential proceedings in Roc. No. A4/81603/2024 dated 14-08-2025 passed by 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI I LAKSHMI CHANDRIKA, W/O. SRINIVASA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC.SARPANCH, R/O. PANDITHAVILLURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, KODURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PANDITAVILLURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, PODURU MANDAL, WEST ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in Mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 3603/A3/2024 2025 passed by the 3rd respondent and the consequential 2025 passed by 3rd e Constitution of RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 2 India and principles of natural justice and to consequently set aside the same and to pass IA 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 Pleased to suspend the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.3603/A3/2024 dated 01-07-2025 including proceedings in Roc. No. A4/81603/2024 dated 14-08-2025 pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to vacate the Interim Orders passed in WP No 22456 of 2025 dt 22.08.2025 and also dismiss the present WP as it devoid or merits and far from the truth. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER Questioning the proceedings No.3603/A3/2024, dated 01.07.2025 and consequential proceedings in Roc.No.A4/81603/2023, dated 14.08.2025 of respondent no.3, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 3 3. Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice dated 04.09.2024 seeking explanation as to why the cheque drawing power of the petitioner being sarpanch alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.20,22,944/-, for which the petitioner had submitted explanation on 09.05.2025. He would further contend that thereafter the respondent no.3 passed orders dated 01.07.2025 stating that upon receipt of explanation, he had called for remarks and accordingly the Divisional Panchayat Officer submitted report as if the petitioner had misappropriated funds and therefore, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner had been withdrawn. He would further contend that respondent no.3 did not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner refuting the allegations made against her and solely based on the report submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, which was never supplied to the petitioner, the orders withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner were came to be passed and therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. He would further contend that later, the respondent no.3 had againissued another show cause notice dated 14.08.2025 seeking explanation as to why the petitioner should not be suspended from the office of sarpanch, though not competent to issue such a notice and as per section 249-B(5) of the Andhra Pradesh RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 4 Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, District Collector alone is competent to issue such a notice. He would further contend that the orders withdrawing cheque power having been passed without considering the explanation of the petitioner solely basing on the report of Divisional Panchayat Officer, which was never supplied to the petitioner, and as the show cause notice dated 14.08.2025 was issued not by the competent authority, both the proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would contend that the proceedings withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner have been passed after considering the explanation of the petitioner and as the report submitted by Divisional Panchayat Officer is not made as the sole base for issuing show cause notice and is only an aid to know the ground reality to come to a right conclusion, not supplying copy of the same to the petitioner is not required and hence there is no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. She would further contend that respondent no.3 is competent to issue notice to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be suspended from the office of Sarpanch. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same deserves dismissal. She would further contend that The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 provides for an appeal against the orders passed withdrawing RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 5 cheque power and therefore, this writ petition having been filed without exhausting the efficacious alternative remedy, is not maintainable. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 5. Regarding maintainability of writ petition, the failure to exhaust an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to judicial intervention when the principles of natural justice have been violated. The rule requiring the exhaustion of alternative remedies is a self-imposed restriction on the High Courts' extraordinary jurisdiction, based on policy and discretion, rather than a strict rule of law that ousts the court's jurisdiction entirely. Courts have carved out specific, well-established exceptions where a writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy. These exceptional circumstances include:  Where the writ petition seeks the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.  Where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice(such as the right to a fair hearing or the rule against bias).  Where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or an excess of jurisdiction.  Where the vires of a statute or delegated legislation is challenged. RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 6 6. In cases where a clear violation of natural justice is demonstrated, courts can exercise their discretion to entertain the petition and provide relief, without forcing the petitioner to go through a potentially time-consuming and ineffectual alternative process. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner alleges that there is violation of principles of natural justice as respondent no.3 had solely relied on the report given by Divisional Panchayat Officer, which was not supplied to the petitioner, for passing the orders withdrawing the cheque power. Therefore, this writ petition is maintainable. Perusal of the impugned orders dated 01.07.2025 shows that the petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice and thereafter respondent no.3 directed the Divisional Panchayat Officer to verify the explanation and submit remarks and accordingly the Divisional Panchayat Officer seems to have submitted a report holding that the petitioner being sapanch along with the Panchayat Secretary had misappropriated an amount of Rs.20,80,851/-. The impugned proceedings would further disclose that based on the report submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the District Panchayat Officer came to the conclusion that there was misappropriation of funds and accordingly passed orders withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner. RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 7 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report submitted by Divisional Panchayat officer had not been supplied to the petitioner before passing impugned orders, remained unchallenged. 9. In Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: It is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. “If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. 10. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly states that if without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision 1.(2023) 11 SCC 130 RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 8 is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. 11. As stated above, a close scrutiny of the impugned proceedings in unambiguous terms suggest that the report submitted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer was taken into consideration for passing orders. Therefore, not furnishing the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer to the petitioner invalidates the orders passed based on the said document. Therefore, the orders dated 01.07.2025 whereby the cheque power of the petitioner has been withdrawn are liable to be set aside. 12. Regarding the second aspect as to the competence of respondent no.3 for issuing show cause notice to explain as to why the office of Sarpanch shall not be suspended, this court is not inclined to go into the said aspect at present. The petitioner can submit explanation to the said show cause notice by raising all the grounds. 13. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the proceedings No.3603/A3/2024, dated 01.07.2025. The District Panchayat Officer is directed to supply copy of the report submitted by Divisional Panchayat Officer to the petitioner within a period of two (02) weeks from today. On such, the petitioner is at liberty to submit explanation within two (02) weeks thereafter. On receipt of explanation, the District Panchayat RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 9 Officer shall pass orders afresh in accordance with law within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter. The petitioner is at liberty to submit explanation to the proceedings in Roc.No.A4/81603/2024, dated 14.08.2025, if she is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR RC,J W.P.No.22456 of 2025 10