APHC010630592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1257 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-26 [3552] K Nagabhushanamma ...Appellant Vs. The State Of AP and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. V Vinod K Reddy Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 2nd December 2025 P C : The present writ petition has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 04.11.2025, passed in W.P. No.29321 of 2025. The appellant had preferred the writ petition challenging the order passed under Rule 42 of the Rules relating to 8Certain Taxes & Lodging Moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and Payment of Money from the Gram Panchayat Fund9 notified vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995. 2. In exercise of the powers vested in the District Panchayat Officer under Rule 42(1) of the aforesaid Rules, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1257 of 2025 was suspended for a period of six months. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned Single Judge held that there were no valid grounds established by the petitioner, which would warrant interference by the learned Single Judge in the order so passed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the specific case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted. It is stated that by virtue of show-cause notice, dated 11.08.2025, the District Panchayat Officer had required the petitioner to show cause as to why the cheque drawing power of the petitioner be not suspended and the explanation was to be rendered within a period of seven days. It is stated that an explanation, dated 25.08.2025, was submitted, and further time of twenty days was sought to submit a proper explanation, which prayer was not at all considered by the said Officer affecting prejudicially the right of the petitioner to submit an effective representation. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this issue as to whether the petitioner in fact had been afforded an opportunity of being heard or not, was not at all considered by the learned Single Judge even when in the judgment and order impugned, the argument had been noticed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the judgment and order impugned. 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1257 of 2025 5. Admittedly, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner was withdrawn by virtue of the powers vested in the District Panchayat Officer in terms of Rule 42 of the aforementioned Rules. A perusal of Rule 42 would make it clear that while the power is vested with the District Panchayat Officer to prohibit the Sarpanch from drawing moneys of the Gram Panchayat for a specified period, the proviso to Rule 42(1) clearly envisages that an opportunity of making a representation ought to be given to the Sarpanch concerned. In the present case, although the appellant had sought twenty days further time to give a proper explanation, yet it cannot be denied that the District Panchayat Officer did give an opportunity to the petitioner to make a representation, which was in fact submitted by the petitioner admittedly. 6. The obligation on the District Panchayat Officer in terms of proviso to Rule 42(1) was, therefore, clearly satisfied. It will not be out of place here to mention that once it comes to the knowledge of the District Panchayat Officer that there have been improprieties insofar as the utilization of the funds of the Panchayat are concerned, it is only with a view to protect the financial interest of the Panchayat that the Rule envisages suspension of the powers of the Sarpanch to draw moneys from the account of the Panchayat. In the absence of any specified period in Rule 42(1) for rendering an explanation, in our opinion, seven days time was more than adequate. Any 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1257 of 2025 period beyond that was unwarranted, as no basis had been laid by the appellant as to why twenty days further time was required to submit an explanation. 7. Be that as it may, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view contrary to the one which has been taken by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the present appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J akn 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A. No.1257 of 2025 HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Appeal No: 1257 of 2025 DATE : 02.12.2025 AKN 45