APHC010171992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 8868/2025 Between: U Siva Ramaraju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY 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 The Court made the following order: The proceedings issued by 4th respondent (District Panchayat Officer) vide RSI.No.886/2024(PA)/A2, dated 24.03.2025 suspending the cheque drawing power of petitioner (Sarpanch) of Ananthavaram Gram Panchayat pending final enquiry, has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel representing 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 G.R.Sudhakar, learned counsel, while reiterating contents of the writ petition, would contend that, 4th respondent issued a notice dated 13.03.2025 alleging misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds, to which the petitioner had submitted a written explanation dated 19.03.2025 seeking three(03) months time for submitting detailed explanation on the ground that his wife was undergoing treatment in Hyderabad. He would further contend that, without considering the same, the 4th respondent had issued speaking order dated 24.03.2025 calling for an explanation within ten (10) days as to why the cheque powers of the petitioner should not be cancelled as per Rule 41 of G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief Department, dated 20.01.1995 and until conclusion of full fledged enquiry, the cheque drawing power of petitioner was suspended without specifying any time period. He would further contend that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons much less satisfactory reasons for withdrawal of cheque power and moreover withdrawal of power for indefinite period is against the Rule-42 of Rules relating to Certain Taxes & Lodging Moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and Payment of Money from the Gram Panchayat Fund notified vide G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief Department, dated 20.01.1995. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions in K.Ammulamma vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others1 of the High Court of unified State of Andhra Pradesh and in Vemagiri Chellayamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others2. 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, as there is allegation of misappropriation of funds, in order to protect the funds of Gram Panchayat, as an interim measure, by giving cogent reasons, the impugned proceedings were issued by suspending the cheque drawing power of the petitioner. 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. 5. 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. 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 1 2016(1) ALD 72 2 Manu/AP/1433/2023 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 others (supra 1), 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 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 (supra 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 suspended for an indefinite period, which is against the scheme of the Rules 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 4th respondent (District Panchayat Officer) vide RSI.No.886/2024(PA)/A2, dated 24.03.2025. 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. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS