APHC010682752025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35255/2025 Between: 1. PASUPULETI CHALAPATHY, S/O NARAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS D.NO.5-77-2, CHIPPILI VILLAGE MADANAPALLE MANDALAM ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPTD BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT . D.NO.P-76 J, PVS ICON BUILDING, PATHURU X ROAD, TADEPALLI VILLAGE GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHYAT OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHYAT OFFICER, MADANAPALLE 5. THE KURRAVANKA GRAMA PANCHYAT, MADANAPALLE MANDALAM REPTD BY ITS 2 SECRETARY 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/MPDO, MADANAPALLE MANDAL ANNAMAYYA 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 issue an order direction or a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the DPO Annamayya/R3 to the writ petitioner vide Ref C.No.1224/2025- A6 dt. 9-12-2025 Ex.P.1 as illegal arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice and 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 operation of the impugned order vide Ref C.No.1224/2025-A6 dt. 9-12-2025 Ex.P.1 issued by the DPO annamayya/R3 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S S BHATT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 The Court made the following order: Impugning the order issued by the 3rd respondent-District Panchayat Officer vide Ref.C.No.1224/2025-A6, dated 09.12.2025, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submitted that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch during the election held in February 2021 and discharging his duties with utmost care and sincerity since then. While so, the DPO, on the ground of certain irregularities, issued a notice dated 24.11.2025, for which the petitioner submitted explanations dated 24.11.2025 and 28.11.2025, duly requesting the authorities to provide some more time to submit all the accounts pertaining to the allegations made by the DPO, on the ground that the Village Secretary was suspended on 30.11.2025. He further submitted that though the account books are with the DPO, without furnishing a copy to the petitioner to prove his innocence, hastily passed the impugned order in flagrant 4 violation of principles of natural justice. At the behest of political people in the village, the impugned orders are passed only to harass and wreak vengeance on the petitioner. Therefore, the said impugned order is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied on the order of the Madras High Court passed in W.P (MD) No.18042 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.15055, 15056 and 16342 of 2023 and contended that the Court of Madurai, by taking into consideration of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, found fault with the impugned orders therein on the ground that it has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, if the said order is not set aside, it will not only affect the rights of the petitioner but also his reputation in the village would be adversely affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader & learned Standing Counsel in one voice contended that though the authority has given sufficient time to the petitioner to submit the documents, the petitioner did not choose to submit the same. 5 The petitioner, in the affidavit itself, has categorically stated that though he requested some time to submit the documents pertaining to the allegations made by the DPO, on the ground that the Secretary was suspended, he could not submit the documents. Having said so, they cannot say that the documents were not available with the petitioner (Sarpanch). She further submitted that as an interim measure, to protect the funds of the Gram Panchayat, the impugned proceedings, suspending the cheque drawing power of the petitioner till 31.03.2026, came to be passed by recording cogent reasons. Therefore, there is neither procedural irregularity nor impropriety in passing such orders and the same does not require any interference of this Court. They further contended that, as against the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer (DPO), an alternative remedy of appeal before the Collector concerned is available under law; however, the petitioner without availing such alternative remedy, knocking the doors of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India and filing a writ does not arise. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the same. 6 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that existence of an alternative remedy is not an exclusive bar to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, when the orders are passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice, a writ is very much maintainable. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by respective parties. 7. As could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the respective parties, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner (Sarpanch) was suspended by the impugned proceedings vide Ref.No.1224/2025-A6, dated 09.12.2025. 8. The main ground raised and urged by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the impugned order was passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to furnish the documents sought in the notice, despite asking time. In support of his contentions, he relied on the order referred supra, the relevant portion of the order reads as follows: 7 16. That apart so far despite several requests by the petitioner, the sixth and seventh respondents have not furnished the documents pertaining to the various charges framed as against the petitioner. This Court in the case of G. Prakasam vs. Secretary to Government reported in 2011(2) CWC 705, has held that “as the Supreme Court in its repeated decisions has held that if the non furnishing of the documents is prejudicial to the delinquent Officer, the enquiry as held by the Enquiry Officer would vitiate the entire proceedings. In yet another case, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 has held as “non furnishing of document would result in breach of rules of natural justice” 9. In this regard, Rule 42 of G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995, is relevant and reads as follows: “42. (1) The District Panchayat Officer converned 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 Panchyat 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 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 Gram Panchayat during the period during which the executive authority is prohibited from 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 treasurles 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 8 order, be made to the executive authority who is prohibited by such order form drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat.” 10. No doubt, the order relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is well settled principle and if an authority bases its decision relying on certain documents without supplying to the petitioner and without asking for an explanation in that regard, passing such orders would be in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. However, that is not the situation in the case on hand and the order relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. 11. Admittedly, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner was suspended till 31.03.2026. Under the scheme of the Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995, Rule 42 only enables the authority to suspend the cheque drawing power for a short and specific period but not for an indefinite period. In the present case, the authority has suspended the cheque drawing power of the petitioner for a specific time period, as per the rules referred supra. 12. The provision is very clear in this regard. By virtue of sub-rule 1 of 42, the District Panchayt Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any Sarpanch from drawing moneys of the Gram Panchayat for 9 specific period. The proviso to the said rule also clearly envisages that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the Sarpanch concerned. 13. As could be seen from the record, a notice has been given to the petitioner calling for an explanation and despite giving sufficient time, the petitioner could not submit the documents on the ground that the then Secretary was suspended. It is not in dispute that later point of time, the Secretary in-charge has been appointed. Whatever it may be, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the case, as it may affect the rights of the petitioner, while the authority deciding the main case. This court did not find any valid or legal ground warranting the interference. Only to protect the Gram Panchayat funds, as an interim measure, invoking the provisions of Rule 42 (1) as stated supra, the authority has rightly suspended the cheque drawing power of the petitioner for a specific period. 14. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that when an alternative remedy is available, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court does not arise. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 10 alternative remedy of appeal is not an exclusive bar when the order impugned passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 15. The law is very clear that when an alternative remedy is available, it operates as an exclusive bar. However, where there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, a writ jurisdiction can be invoked. In the present case, as is evident, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, knocking the doors of this Court bypassing the alternative remedy is impermissible. The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved, or where the statute under which the action complained of provides such remedy. 16. As far as the principles of natural justice are concerned, the extent to which they are required to be complied with depends on the fact situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. In the present case, the cheque drawing power has not been cancelled but as an interim measure, to protect the funds of the Society, 11 the said power has been suspended for a definite period and therefore, there is no violation of principle of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. 17. For the reasons stated supra, the grounds raised by the petitioner fails and the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, any observations made in this order should not come in the way while adjudicating main case of the petitioner by the concerned authority and it has to be dealt with independently. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 23.12.2025 Note: Issue CC by 30.12.2025 B/o. ANS 12 89 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 35255/2025 Date: 23.12.2025 Note: Issue CC by 30.12.2025 B/o. ANS