APHC010563012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29321/2025 Between: K Nagabhushanamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: The proceedings issued by respondent no.4 vide ROC.No.2996/2025- A1, dated 29.08.2025 suspending the cheque drawing power of petitioner (Sarpanch) of Yeturu Gram Panchayat for a period of six months has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri D.Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Sri D.Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel, while reiterating contents of the writ petition, would contend that, based on the complaint given by some third parties and the report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent (District Panchayat Officer(DPO)) had issued a show cause-notice dated 11.08.2025 alleging misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds and sought explanation. He further submitted that the petitioner has addressed a letter to the 4th respondent on 25.08.2025 seeking 20 days for submitting detailed explanation for the said show cause notice on the ground of ill-health. Without considering the same, the 4th respondent had issue the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 and thereby suspended the cheque drawing power of the petitioner for a period of six(06) months. He would further contend that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons much less satisfactory reasons for withdrawal of cheque power and moreover in W.A.No.134 of 2025 dated 20.02.2025 this hon’ble Court has held that the period of suspension of cheque powers should generally be three months but in the present case, the cheque drawing power has been suspened for six months. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions in K.Ammulamma vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others1 of the High Court of unified State of Andhra Pradesh and in Vemagiri Chellayamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others2. 1 2016(1) ALD 72 2 Manu/AP/1433/2023 4. On the other hand, Sri M.Sudheer, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader, in one voice contended that pursuant to the enquiry report, the District Panchayat officer had issued show cause notice for submission of explanation as to why the cheque power should not be withheld and since no explanation was received, the cheque power of the petitioner has been suspended vide the impugned proceedings. Moreover the withdrawal of power for indefinite period is against the Rule-42 of Rules relating to Certain Taxes & Lodging Moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and Payment of Money from the Gram Panchayat Fund notified vide G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief Department, dated 20.01.1995 but in the present case, the authorities have specified a period (which is not indefinite). They further submitted that, in order to protect the funds of Gram Panchayat, as an interim measure, by giving cogent reasons, the impugned proceedings were issued by suspending the cheque drawing power of the petitioner for a period of 6 months. Therefore, there is neither procedural irregularity nor impropriety in passing the impugned proceedings and the same does not require any interference of this Court. The writ petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The submissions made by both the learned counsel and the material available on record would go to show that cheque power of the petitioner, who is sarpanch, has been suspended vide impugned proceedings dated 29.08.2025. 6. Rule 42 of the Rules relating to Certain Taxes and Lodging of Moneys Received by the Gram Panchayats and Payment of Money from the Gram Panchayat Fund issued by G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief Department, dated 20.01.1995 is germane for the present purpose and the same reads as under: “42(1) The District Panchayat Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any (Sarpanch) from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order. Provided no such order shall be passed under opportunity of making representation has been given to the (Sarpanch) concerned. Provided further that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the (Sarpanch) not to draw the moneys of the gram panchayat pending the exercise of his powers under this sub-rule. (2) Any (Sarpanch) aggrieved by an order passed by the District Panchayat Officer 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”. 7. In K.Ammulamma vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra 1), a coordinate bench of the High Court of Unified State of Andhra Pradesh held thus: “8. Three essential requirements to pass final orders under Rule 42(1) of the Rules are, (1) The District Panchayat Officer must be satisfied with the necessity to withdraw cheque power of Sarpanch. He should record reasons in support of such decision; (2) Must afford due opportunity to the Sarpanch on the allegations; and (3) Must specify the period during which such power can be withdrawn. 9. A reading of Rule 42 of the Rules makes it clear that the rule making authority is conscious of consequences of exercise of such power, on the Gram Panchayat. Thus, sufficient safeguards are provided. The safeguards provided in Rule 42, act as check on District panchayat Officer to ensure, he does not transgress his powers and cripple functioning of Gram Panchayat. Even after following due process, withdrawal of cheque power is for a limited period. Scheme of the Rule also shows that it is intended to be exercised when minor irregularities are noticed on the functioning of Sarpanch. If Sarpanch commits grave illegalities, the Act and the Rules empower competent authority to remove him from the post. It is thus clear that exercise of power to cripple the functioning of Sarpanch has to be in exceptional circumstances and is for a limited period. When main provision of Rule 42 only enables to withdraw money drawing power of Sarpanch for a limited period, it is necessary and expedient to infer that exercise of power to order to withdraw money withdrawing authority of Sarpanch pending passing final orders shall be for a very short period and that final decision has to be taken expeditiously and within a specified time. In the instant case, no final decision is taken so far. It appears petitioner is not put on notice. No justification is shown as to why the issue is kept pending so far. 10. The impugned action defeats the very object of giving autonomy to the Panchayat Raj institution. The Gram Panchayat is a democratic institution at the gross root level and Sarpanch shall have the functional autonomy in discharging the responsibility as Sarpanch. Unless Sarpanch is unseated from the post, he is entitled to exercise all his powers that enjoined on him by the Act. Utilization of funds of Gram Panchayat for various development activities is essential and important component of the discharge of duties by the Sarpanch. Thus, when Sarpanch is denuded of such power, it has to be for valid reasons and as envisaged in Rule 42 for a specified period only.” 8. In Vemagiri Chellayamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra 2), this Court placing reliance on the decision in K.Ammulamma (supra 1) held thus: “11.The above observations would indicate that, specifying the period during which the cheque drawing power has been withdrawn, is imperative. However, the impugned proceedings does not specify the said period. It only states that the prohibition would be until further orders. Thus, the impugned orders are not in compliance of the requirement of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 42 of the Rules and they have been issued exceeding the power conferred on the authority. Therefore, the impugned order, having been passed contrary to the Rules, is liable to be set aside.” 9. Admittedly, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner was suspended for a period of six(06) months. The scheme of the Rules made vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995, since Rule 42 would only enable the authority to suspend the cheque power for a short period but not for an indefinite period. In the present case, the authority, while suspending the cheque drawing power, has specified a time period as six months as per the rule in vogue. Therefore, the petitioner has not raised any valid grounds which require interference of this Court. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, she can file an appeal before the District collector concerned in accordance with law. 10. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from taking steps in accordance with law, if they so desire. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS