APHC010632982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. N SUNDARAIAH, S/O. N. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH, R/O. YANAMADALA VILLAGE, CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PVS ICON BUILDINGS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING) SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ATMAKURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, YANAMADALA GRAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 32838/2025 N SUNDARAIAH, S/O. N. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH, R/O. YANAMADALA VILLAGE, CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PVS ICON BUILDINGS, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING) SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ATMAKURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, YANAMADALA GRAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI N SUNDARAIAH, S/O. N. VENKATA REDDY, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH, R/O. YANAMADALA VILLAGE, CHEJERLA MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PVS ICON BUILDINGS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING) SPSR NELLORE THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ATMAKURU, SPSR THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, YANAMADALA GRAM 2 PANCHAYAT, YANAMADALA VILLAGE, CHEJERLA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in ROC.No.2887/2024-A8 dated 06.11.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, issued in colourable exercise of power, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Consequently set-aside the same 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 proceedings in ROC.No.2887/2024-A8 dated 06.11.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 The Court made the following order: Questioning the show cause notice vide proceedings in ROC No.2887/2024-A8, dated 06.11.2025 issued by respondent No.3, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri D.Harshavardhan, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Vinod K Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Mandal Praja Parishads appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the Writ affidavit, contended that the petitioner is the elected Sarpanch of Yanamadala Village, Chejerla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, elected in the month of April 2021. Based on the complaint filed against the petitioner before the District Collector, respondent No.5 conducted an enquiry without following the due process of law and issued a show-cause notice dated 02.11.2024 alleging financial irregularities relating to the R.O. Water Plant. Despite seeking a short extension of 10 days to submit explanation due to ill-health, respondent No.4 passed an ante-dated order dated 27.11.2024, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, suspending the petitioner’s cheque-drawing power. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.770 of 2025, and this Court has set aside the said order and directed the respondent No.4 to consider the explanation of the petitioner and 4 pass orders afresh in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submitted that while the earlier matter was pending, another enquiry notice dated 08.04.2025 was issued based on a fresh complaint. The petitioner attended the enquiry on 10.04.2025 and submitted a detailed explanation, which was endorsed by respondent No.7. He further submitted that another show-cause notice dated 20.06.2025 was issued based on the report of respondent No.5 and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 30.06.2025. Subsequently, respondent No.4 passed another order dated Nil.07.2025 again suspending cheque-drawing power for six months. The petitioner challenged this order in W.P.No.26318 of 2025, and this Court suspended the said order. Pursuant to the said order, cheque- drawing power of the petitioner was restored. He further submitted that while W.P.No.26318 of 2025 is still pending and the order therein was suspended, respondent No.3 issued another show-cause notice dated 06.11.2025 proposing suspension of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 249 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act. He further submitted that the said notice is based on the very same allegations and is issued without proper application of mind and in colourable exercise of power vested with the Collector. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that grounds that are required for challenging the show-cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had not been made out by the 5 petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed even without inviting counter on the legal principles. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Since the notice impugned was issued proposing the suspension of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch under Section 249 (6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, it is relevant to refer Section 249 (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for ready reference. “ (6) If the District Collector is of the opinion that a Sarpanch or a UpaSarpanch or any member of a Gram Panchayat or the Government are of the opinion that any President or Vice-President or the *[Chairperson] or *[Vice Chairperson] or any member of a *[Mandal Praja Parishad] or *[Zilla Praja Parishad] wilfully omitted or refused to carry out the orders of Government for the proper working of the concerned local body or abused his position or the powers vested in him, and that the further continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interests of the concerned local body or the inhabitants of the Village, Mandal or District, the District Collector or as the case may be, Government may, by order, suspend such Sarpanch or UpaSarpanch or President or Vice-President or as the case may be, the *[Chairperson] or *[Vice-Chairperson] or member from office for a period not exceeding three months, pending investigation into the said charges and action thereon under the foregoing provisions of this section: Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed unless the person concerned has had an opportunity of making a representation against the action proposed: 6 Provided further that it shall be competent for the Government to extend, from time to time, the period of suspension for such further period not exceeding three months, so however that the total period of suspension shall not exceed six months: Provided also that a person suspended under this sub-section shall not be entitled to exercise the powers and perform the functions attached to his office and shall not be entitled to attend the meetings of the concerned local body except a meeting held for the consideration of a no-confidence motion. 7. Proviso to Section 249 (6) of the Act stipulates that no adverse order shall be passed without affording the person concerned an opportunity to make a representation. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, the District Collector has issued the impugned notice, and the issuance of such notice is a mandatory pre-condition for initiating proceedings for the removal of a Sarpanch. 8. It is well settled principle of law that Writ Courts do not interfere with a show-cause notice unless the notice is issued without jurisdiction or is wholly without authority of law. Perusal of the impugned show cause notice discloses that the competent authority has referred to the allegations regarding the operation of R.O water plant and financial irregularities in the Gram Panchayat. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority who has issued show cause notice, which is impugned, has no jurisdiction or authority under law. Whether the allegations made in the show cause notice are correct or not and whether the petitioner is responsible for the operation of the R.O. 7 Plant, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate the same. It is for the competent statutory authority to examine and decide the said issues. 9. In the case of T.Ranjeeth Singh v. State of Telangana, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “ 7.4 The principles deducible from the above decisions are: (i) Ordinarily writ does not lie against show cause notice/charge memo; (ii) Entertaining writ petition against show cause notice/charge memo is dehorse the limit of judicial review/exceeds the power of judicial review at the threshold; (iii) .. (iv) … (v) In only very rare and exceptional cases, if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason, if it is wholly illegal, court can exercise power of judicial review at the stage of show cause notice/charge memo; (vi) Discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised to quash charge sheet/show cause notice.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum laid down in the above judgment, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting interference this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. This order does not preclude the petitioner from submitting explanation to the show 8 cause notice before the statutory authority. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 25.11.2025 CC by 27.11.2025 MP 9 102 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.32838 of 2025 25.11.2025 MP