APHC010503422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. R MAMTHA, W/O.SRINIVASULA REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC SURPANCH OF CHENNAMUKKAPALLE PANCHAYAT, R/O. CHENNAMUKKAPALLE VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAJAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 26310/2025 R MAMTHA, W/O.SRINIVASULA REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC SURPANCH OF CHENNAMUKKAPALLE PANCHAYAT, R/O. CHENNAMUKKAPALLE VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAJAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAYACHOTY ANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT RC,J W.P.No.26310 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI R MAMTHA, W/O.SRINIVASULA REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC SURPANCH OF CHENNAMUKKAPALLE PANCHAYAT, R/O. CHENNAMUKKAPALLE VILLAGE, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), ANNAMAYYA RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAJAMPETA, THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAYACHOTY RC,J W.P.No.26310 of 2025 2 6. CHENNAMUKKAPALLE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY -CUM-PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHENNAMUKKAPALLE PANCHAYAT, CHENNAMUKKAPALLE VILLAGE RAYACHOTY 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.89/2025-A1, dated 15.02.2025 issued by 3rd respondent thereby suspending petitioner's cheque power and illegally interfering with the petitioner's authority as the elected Sarpanch of the Chennamukkapalle Gram Panchayat, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and violative of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , and rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith restore petitioner's financial powers and allow her to discharge her official functions without any obstruction or interference 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 pleased to suspend the operation of proceedings in Rc.No.89/2025-A1, dated 15.02.2025, issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to forthwith restore the financial powers of the petitioner by allowing her to continue exercising cheque power as the elected Sarpanch and allow her to discharge her official functions without any obstruction or interference, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KATTA SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats RC,J W.P.No.26310 of 2025 3 ORDER The proceedings issued by respondent no.3 vide Rc.No.89/2025-A1, dated 15.02.2025 cancelling the cheque power of the petitioner, Sarpanch of Chennamukkapalle Panchayat has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Katta Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Sri Katta Sudhakar, learned counsel, while reiterating contents of the writ petition, would contend that the cheque power of the petitioner has been cancelled for an indefinite period in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri M.Sudheer, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader, in one voice contended that due to the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, her cheque power was cancelled. They would further submit that there is neither procedural irregularity nor impropriety in passing the impugned proceedings and the same does not require any interference of this Court. The writ petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. RC,J W.P.No.26310 of 2025 4 5. Upon considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and the material available on record, it shows that cheque power of the petitioner, who is surpanch, has been cancelled vide impugned proceedings. 6. 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 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”. 7. 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. 1. 2016(1) ALD 72 RC,J W.P.No.26310 of 2025 5 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 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.” 8. In Vemagiri Chellayamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2 , 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. 9. Admittedly, the cheque drawing power of the petitioner was cancelled for an indefinite period, which is against the scheme of the Rules 2 Manu/AP/1433/2023 RC,J W.P.No.26310 of 2025 6 made vide G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995, since Rule 42 would only enable the authority to suspend the cheque power for a short period but not for an indefinite period. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside since been passed exceeding the power conferred by the Rules. 10. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the proceedings issued by respondent no.3 vide .No.89/2025-A1, dated 15.02.2025. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from taking steps in accordance with law, if they so desire. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATED 23rd day of December, 2025. RR