APHC010480672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. K. BADULLA, S/O.K.GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS, OCC. SARPANCH, R/O.D.NO. 5/16, MALLAMPETA, MANTAPAMPALLI, VONTIMITTA MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRCT. 4. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, V MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. 5. THE MANTAPAMPALLE GRAMPANCHYAT, REP BY PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANTAPAMPALLE MANDAL DISTRICT. 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 an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the proceedings in C.No.252/A3/2025, dated 02.09.2025 issue arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, and a colorable exercise of power contrary to well-established legal prin 1994 and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24846/2025 K. BADULLA, S/O.K.GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS, OCC. SARPANCH, R/O.D.NO. 5/16, MALLAMPETA, MANTAPAMPALLI, VONTIMITTA MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT , SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRICT. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRCT. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, V Y.S.R DISTRICT. THE MANTAPAMPALLE GRAMPANCHYAT, REP BY SECRETARY, MANTAPAMPALLE MANDAL ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the proceedings in C.No.252/A3/2025, dated 02.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, and a colorable exercise of power contrary to rinciples and the provisions of the Panchayat Raj, 1994 and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI K. BADULLA, S/O.K.GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS, OCC. SARPANCH, R/O.D.NO. SARPANCH, R/O.D.NO. 5/16, MALLAMPETA, MANTAPAMPALLI, ...PETITIONER ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRICT. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRCT. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, VONTIMITTA THE MANTAPAMPALLE GRAMPANCHYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MANTAPAMPALLE MANDAL, Y.S.R ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the proceedings in d by the Respondent No.2 as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, and a colorable exercise of power contrary to ciples and the provisions of the Panchayat Raj, 1994 and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to RC,J W.P.No.24846 of 2025 2 me under Articles 14,19,21,and300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings. 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 proceedings in C.No.252/A3/2025, dated 02.09.2025 issued by the Respondent no.2, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER The proceedings issued by respondent no.2 vide C.No.252/A3/2025, dated 02.09.2025 cancelling the cheque power of Sarpanch of Mantapampalli Gram Panchayat has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Papudippu Sashidhar Reddy, 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 Papudippu Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel, while reiterating contents of the writ petition, would contend that without issuing any show- cause-notice and simply based on a news item the cheque power of the RC,J W.P.No.24846 of 2025 3 petitioner was cancelled and thus there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and thus the order impugned has to be set aside. 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 rto 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 pursuant to adverse news item published in Eenadu Newspaper, the District Collector appointed an enquiry officer and after 1. 2016(1) ALD 72 2 Manu/AP/1433/2023 RC,J W.P.No.24846 of 2025 4 receipt of the report, the District Panchayat officer had issued show cause notice for submission of explanation as to why the cheque power should not be withheld and since no explanation was received, the cheque power of the petitioner has been cancelled vide the impugned proceedings. 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. 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. RC,J W.P.No.24846 of 2025 5 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. RC,J W.P.No.24846 of 2025 6 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 cancelled 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 respondent no.2 vide RC,J W.P.No.24846 of 2025 7 C.No.252/A3/2025, dated 02.09.2025. 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 RR