APHC010707932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36514/2025 Between: 1. MADDI NAGA RATTALU, W/O. VENKATA SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH, R/O. LINGAMGUNTIA VILLAGE AND GRAMPANCHAYAT, HANUMANTHUNIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523246. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI- 522238. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ANDHRA PRADESH, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE- 523001. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE-523001. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230. 2 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HANUMANTHUNIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523227. 7. THE EXTENSION OFFICER, , (PR AND RD), HANUMANTHUNIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523227. 8. LINGAMGUNTLA GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS., PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, LINGAMGUNTIA VILLAGE AND GRAMPANCHAYAT, HANUMANTHUNIPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523246. ...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 to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the aggrieved by the action of the 4th Respondent issued impugned proceedings in R.O.C. No. 893/2024/P.A2, dated 01.03.2025, issued by the 4 Respondent, withdrawing the cheque-signing powers of the petitioner as a elected Sarpanch of Lingamguntia Gram Panchayat, under Rule 42(1) of G.O. Ms. No. 30 dated 20.01.1995, without specifying any definite period and vesting such powers with the 7th Respondent until further orders, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings Vide R.O.C. No. 893/2024/P.A2, dated 01.03.2025 issued by the 4th Respondent and 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 to suspend the impugned proceedings Vide R.O.C. No. 893/2024/P.A2, dated 01.03.2025 issued by the 4th Respondent and pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent in issuing notice dated 01.03.2025 withdrawing the cheque signing powers of the petitioner who is Sarpanch of Lingamguntla Gram Panchayat under Rule 42 of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20.01.1995 without specifying any definite period and vesting such powers with the 7th respondent, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri G.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Lingamguntla Gram Panchayat in February, 2021. While so, the 4th respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 01.03.2025 temporarily withdrawing the petitioner’s cheque drawing power without serving any notice to the petitioner on the ground of misappropriation of funds on 01.06.2021 & 31.03.2025 and without framing any charges by issuing show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of 4 personal hearing. However, as the cheque drawing power has not been restored, a representation/explanation dated 11.03.2025 was made to respondents to restore the cheque drawing power and the same was not considered. He further submitted that it would suffice for the time being, if a direction is given to the respondents to pass orders on the representation made by the petitioner by fixing time. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has indulged in huge misappropriation of funds. If the cheque drawing power is restored to the petitioner, there is every likelihood of affecting Panchayat funds. She further submitted that so far no orders have been passed on the petitioner’s representation. The writ petition is meritless and no indulgence can be shown on the petitioner, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. 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. 7. 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 5 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”. 8. In K.Ammulamma vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others1, 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 1 2016(1) ALD 72 6 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.” 9. In Vemagiri Chellayamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others2, 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.” 10. It is not in dispute that the impugned proceedings vide R.O.C.No.893/2024/P.A2 dated 01.03.2025 has been issued by the 4th respondent cancelling the cheque drawing power of the petitioner without 2 Manu/AP/1433/2023 7 mentioning period of suspension, which is against the scheme of the Rules made vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside since been passed exceeding the power conferred by the Rules. 11. In the above view of the matter, the impugned notice vide R.O.C.No.893/2024/P.A2 dated 01.03.2025 is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law, if they so desire. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 31st December, 2025 RKS