% APHC010280472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) P FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 14151 OF 2025 Between: Vanam Annapurna,, W/o Ramanjaneyulu, age 52 years, Sarpanch of Rajampalli Village, R/o Rajampalli Village,DarshiManclal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, 1. Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522503. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2. The District Panchayat Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Darsi, Prakasam District Vajja Nagamani, D/o Subba Rao, aged about 45 years, Vice/Upa- Sarpanch of Rajampalli Village R/o Rajampalli Village, Darshi Mandal, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...Respondents 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, Direction more particularly one in the nature of vtrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'"^ respondent in issuing the ' ? impughea order vide Rc.No.162/2025(Pts)A2 dated 14.05.2025 cancelling the cfteque drawing power of the petitioner for period of 3 (three) months without giving opportunity to the petitioner and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice. Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act and its rules in terms of GO.Ms.No.30, PR and RD and R dated 20.01.1995 and consequently set aside the same and restore the cheque drawing power of the petitioner. lA 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 interim order that to suspend the impugned order of the 3 rd pass an respondent vide Rc.No.162/2025(Pts)A2 dated 14.05.2025, pending disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V V LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI M SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI V SAI KUMAR The Court made the following order: ■£ 1 NV,J W.P.No.l4151of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:14151 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution 1. of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3^'^ respondent in issuing the impugned order in RC No.162/2025(Pts)A2 dated 14.05.2025 cancelling the cheque drawing powers of Petitioner for a period of 3 (three) months without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of natural justice, Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act and its rules in terms of G.O.Ms.No.30 PR & RD dated 20.01.1995 and consequently set-aside the same and restore the cheque drawing powers of the Petitioner.” 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is an elected Sarpanch under SC Women category for Rajamapalli Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District, While discharging her duties as Sarpanch of the Village, a complaint was made before the 3'^'^ Respondent alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds of gram panchayat funds. After such complaint, an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kanigiri conducted an inquiry 2 W.P.No.14151 of 202. regarding misuse of Rajampalli Gram Panchayat submitted Inquiry Report, holding that the petitioner unauthrozied payments in violation of government norms by engaging her son, under the guise of a social activities and made extensive payments in his name. Pursuant to the Inquiry Report, the District Panchayat Officer, Prakasam District Rc.No.162/2025(Pts)A2 dated 14.05.2025, power of the petitioner to draw funds funds and has made issued orders vide suspending the cheque under Rule 42(1) of G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20.01.1995, further ordering that the General Funds of Rajampalli Gram Panchayat as well as 14*^ Finance Commission funds shall be drawn in accordance with government norms only with the signature of Extension Officer (PR & RD), Darsi Mandal. Challenging the notice dated and 15 14.05.2025, the present writ petition is filed. 3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the impugned order was issued without calling explanation petitioner, without providing fair and reasonable that from the opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and also the terms of Rule 42(1) Rules, 1995. He further submits that, once the impugned order is passed without adhering to the principles of 3 NV,J W,P.No.l4151 of 2025 natural justice and reasonable opportunity of hearing, the order impugned is unsustainable under law and liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that since the petitioner did not submit her explanation within stipulated period of time, the 3'"'^ respondent proceeded further and passed impugned order only after issuance of show cause notice to the Petitioner. As such, the 3'^^ respondent complied with the steps / procedure as contemplated under Rule 42(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1995. He further submits that the order impugned is an appealable order U/s 42(2) of .the A.P. Panchayat Raj Rules, 1995 before the 3'^'^ Respondent-District Collector. Without availing such alternative remedy the Petitioner approached this Court and invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction which is contrary to the Rules and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the material placed on record. 6. It is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.29,47,32/- during the Financial Years 2021-2022, 2022-23, 4 NV,. W.P.No.l4151of 2025 it 2023-24 and 2024-25, contrary to the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act, by engaging her son under the guise of a social activist. Accordingly, the District Panchayat Officer has exercised his power under Rule 42(1) and cancelled the cheque drawing power of the petitioner a period of for three months through the impugned notice. However, it is alleged that, though the petitioner appeared for enquiry on 10.04.2025 before the Inquiry Officer, she was not provided with copy of complaint, thereby she was denied opportunity of submitting her explanation. Passing the impugned order without calling for explanation from the petitioner and without providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is impermissible under law and violative of principles of natural justice. It is settled proposition of law that once the impugned order passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing fair and reasonable opportunity, the question of alternative remedy is not mandatory to be approached, as such, it does not arise. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be set-aside. 5 NV,J W.P.No.l4151of2025 7. In the result, writ petition is allowed, with the following directions: The action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the order dated 14.05.2025 without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is declared as illegal and arbitrary; The order in RC No.162/2025(Pts)A2 dated 14.05.2025 is hereby set-aside; However, the third respondent is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. The third respondent is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanation pursuant to the notice issued afresh. After such submission of explanation by the petitioner, the 3'"' respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate speaking orders afresh, in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. a. b. c. 8. consequently, miscellaneous applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// vy SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Pradesh-522503. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam Secretariat,Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra District, Ongole. District Panchayat Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. Parishad Development Officer, Darsi, Prakasam District The 3. The 4. The Mandal One CC to SRI. VV LAKSHMl NARAYANA Advocate [OPUC] PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV High Court 5. 6. 7. Two CCs to GP FOR of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri M 9. One CC to 10. Two CD Copies. Sudheer, SC for Gram Panchayat [OPUC]. SRI. V SAl KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] AL -WV A: A' HIGH COURT TL DATED;19/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 14151 OF 2025 g( 16 OCT 2025 )% ^-sesms^^ ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS