APHC010485152023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. PAPPU POLICE, S/O LATE PAPPU LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, 8TH WARD, K.MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O DOOR NO. 2 VADAPALEM VILLAGE, KALINGAPATNAM POST, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PVS ICON, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, AT SRIKAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, AT SRIKAKULAM. 5. MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER, GARA SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, K. MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 25100/2023 PAPPU POLICE, S/O LATE PAPPU LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, 8TH WARD, K.MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O DOOR NO. 2 VADAPALEM VILLAGE, KALINGAPATNAM POST, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PVS ICON, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, AT SRIKAKULAM. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, AT MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER, GARA SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, K. MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI PAPPU POLICE, S/O LATE PAPPU LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, 8TH WARD, K.MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O DOOR NO. 2-6, VADAPALEM VILLAGE, KALINGAPATNAM POST, GARA MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE GOVERNMENT OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PVS ICON, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, AT SRIKAKULAM. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, AT MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD OFFICER, GARA MANDAL, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, K. MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. BUDDA LALITHA, W/O BUDDA YARRANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SARPANCH, MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. BUDDA YERRANNA, S/O LATE KORLAYYA, AGED ABOUT 43YEARS, K. MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. PAPPU SRINIVAS RAO, , S/O PAPPU RAMANA, R/O VADAPALEM VILLAGE, KALINGAPATNAM POST, K. MATSYALESAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, GARA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting enquiry against the respondents 6 to 8 as per the directions of the 2nd respondent vide Memo.No. 2109665/CPRpercentage RD/D1/2023, dt 28.06.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and opposed to the provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act and rules there under and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant interim directions to the 3'd respondent to conduct enquiry against respondents 6 to 8 based on petitioner's representation dt 06.05.2023 and as per the orders issued by the 2nd respondent Memo.No.2109665/CPRpercentage RD/D1/2023dt 28.06.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 grant leave to the Respondents To file counter affidavit in W.P.No.25100 of 2023 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL The Court made the following: ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning inaction of respondent no.3 in conducting enquiry as per directions of respondent no.2 vide Memo No.2109665/CPR&RD/D1/2023, dated 28.06.2023 against respondent nos. 6 to 8. 2. Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, on counter submitted that pursuant to the memo issued by respondent no.2 an enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was accordingly submitted on 27.09.2023, which was enclosed to the counter affidavit, and therefore, nothing remains for adjudication in this writ petition. 3. In reply, Smt. T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that enquiry was not conducted as envisaged under Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and therefore, the same has no sanctity in the eye of law and such an eye wash enquiry cannot be considered and therefore, the authorities may be directed to conduct enquiry as per section 37 of the Act. 4. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Not conducting enquiry is the grievance raised in this writ petition. The respondent no.4 filed counter affidavit enclosing enquiry report, which shows that an enquiry has been conducted as per the memo issued by respondent no.2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that enquiry as envisaged under Section 37 of the Act has not been conducted, cannot be gone into this writ petition. If at all the petitioner feels aggrieved, it is always open for the petitioner to question the enquiry report by initiating appropriate proceedings. 6. In view of the above, since enquiry as per the memo of respondent no.2 has been conducted, this writ petition can be disposed of. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to question the conduct as well as outcome of enquiry, if feels aggrieved, before appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dated: 3rd December, 2025. RR