IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV, (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11671 OF 2025 Between: Yejarla Prasanna, W/o Y Simon Oahu. Aged about 37 years, Occ; Sarpanch. Inkollti Gram Panchayath, R/o Stalin peta. Inkollu Village and Mandal. Bapatla. Prakasam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, 2. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Chief Executive Officer. Society for Rural Development Services(SRDS), Tadepalli Guntur District. 3. The District Collector Panchayat Wing, Bapatla Rapatia District. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Bapatla District. 5. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Cheerala Bapatla District. 6. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Inkollu Mandal, Bapatla District. 7. The Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Inkollu Bapatla District. 8. The Inkollu Gram Panchayath, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary Inkollu Village and Mandal, Bapatla District. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 41 h respondent in issuing impugned proceedings Roc.No.662/2023-B, dt / extending the suspension period from 29.03.2025 to- 28.03.-2025 28.06.2025, thereby continuously extending the period of suspension of cheque power from December 2023 to June 2025, kl the guise of enquiries which is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from contrary to provisions of A.P Panchayat Raj Act consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to restore the cheque power of the petitioner, in the interest of Justice. 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 grant interim suspension of the impugned proceedings Roc NO.662/2023-B dt 28-03-2025 on the file of 4‘^ respondents by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to exercise cheque power by discharging functions as Sarpanch, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M. SUDHIR, SC for GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following order: f-' APHC% 0223252025 COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATl Original Jurisdiction) IN THE HIGH [3328] (Special MONDAY ,THE FIFTH D^Y OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE honourable SRI JUSTICE GANNANIANENI RANIAKRISHNA PRASAD xAfPiT PETITI^*^ 11671/2025 Between: yejarla prasanna 1. ...PETITIONER AND , ,„E STATE OF 'JIveTS ISSt rroTvE^i^SAJuriUsAVAT, S SEVEN OTHERS. ...respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GVSH1VAJ1 Counsel for the Respondent: RANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 1.GP FOR The Court made the following ORAL ORDER. counsel for the Writ Petitioner Rajesh Kumar, learned Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned (appearing through video conference), Sri Panuku Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj learned Couns^ appearing i and Rural Development and Assistant Sri D.M. Vidya Sagar learned Standing ' behalf of Sri M. Sudheer on Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2 2. This Court has sifted through the Impugned Proceeding 28.03.2025. learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has dat^ submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to set aside the recovery Proceeding dated 23.07.2024 in ROC.No.662/2023-B dated 23.07.2025. Para No.4 of the Order of this Court in W.P.No.17545 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024 is usefully extracted hereunder; “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 27.01.2024 to the 3rd respondent, without considering the same, the impugned proceedings are issued for recovery of the alleged misappropriated funds and even the impugned proceedings does not disclose with regard to the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner except referring the same at Serial No. 14. He further contended that the 3rd respondent herein i.e., the District Collector has issued the impugned proceedings, who is not the competent authority to issue such proceedings and as per Section 265 of A P Panchayat Raj Act 1994 [for short ‘the Act'], the Commissioner is the competent authority, to issue notice to pay the said amounts and upon failure of the payment within the stipulated time, then only the authorities can proceed to initiate such recovery proceedings. Thus, the impugned proceedings are passed without following the mandatory requirement of Section 265 of the Act as well as without considering the explanations and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, hence, the impugned orders suffers from both legal and factual infirmities. Thereby, prayed to set aside the same.” 3. The above Order would indicate that this Court had granted liberty the Respondents to issue fresh Proceedings in accordance with law. 4. The present Proceeding is not with regard to the recovery of amount, but it is with regard to extension of the of the Sarpanch. 5. This Court has perused the Impugned Proceeding dated 28.03.2025 (Ex.P.1). The Impugned Proceeding would indicate that the Writ Petitioner, prima-facie, is alleged to be guilty of the fo"owing issues; to suspension of cheque drawing power 3 \ for having forged the signatures of 11 Ward Members, without serving Advance Notice with regard to the conduct of the meeting or with regard to the Agenda; that the Writ Petitioner has resorted to misuse of funds of an extent of Rs.1.71 crores and mis-appropriation to a tune of Rs.64,72,060/-, and the Impugned Proceeding would also indicate that, in view of continuation of enquiry, the suspension of cheque drawing power was extended from 29.03.2025 to 28.06.2025. 6. Having considered the nature of the allegations faced by the Writ Petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Proceeding impugned in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. No Order as to Costs. 7.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTYa REGISTRAR SECnON^FICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to Sri G V Shivaji, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri M. Sudhir, SC for Gram Panchayat [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.11671 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS