APHC010032062026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2053/2026 Between: 1. MANDALA RAJESHWARI, W/O. Y.VENKATA SESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. SARPANCH , VENKATACHALAMGRAM PANCHAYAT , RIO.VENKATACHALAMVILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. TO GOVERNMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AT NELLORE. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, AT NELLORE. ...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 appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the procedure adopted by the Respondent No.2 and 3 in invoking section 249 of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 against the Petitioner as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of Principles of 2 Natural Justice consequentially set aside the Show Cause Notice in ROC.No.5299/2024-A1, dated 12.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 stay all further proceedings in . Show Cause Notice in ROC.No.5299/2024- A1, dated 12.01.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri B.Sesibushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for respondents 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner, Sarpanch of Venkatachalam Gram Panchayat, filed the above writ petition assailing the show cause notice vide ROC.No.529/2024-A1 dated 12.01.2026 (Ex.P1), issued by the 2nd respondent, violates the procedure mandated under 249 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2026 (Ex.P3), calling upon the petitioner to attend the inquiry on 12.01.2026. The petitioner attended the inquiry and requested the 3rd respondent to furnish certain documents relating 3 to the inquiry. The 3rd respondent, by proceedings vide ROC.No.5299/2024- A1 dated 12.01.2026 (Ex.P2), declined to furnish the documents on the ground that the inquiry is pending for a quite long time. The said proceedings dated 12.01.2026 was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2026. On the same day, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12.01.2026 (Ex.P1), calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation as to why the petitioner shall not be removed from the post of Sarpanch. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is not aware of the contents of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent dated 12.01.2026 to the 2nd respondent. Had the copy of report been served to the petitioner, the petitioner would have submitted a proper explanation to the 2nd respondent to the show cause notice Ex.P1. Learned counsel would further submit that without furnishing the report of the 3rd respondent dated 12.01.2026, directing the petitioner to submit explanation violates the principles of natural justice. 5. The writ petition was listed on 27.01.2026 and adjourned at the request of learned Assistant Government Pleader to secure instructions from the District Collector-2nd respondent. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted written instructions of the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District-2nd respondent. 4 7. As seen from the written instructions of the 2nd respondent, an amount of Rs.81,42,220/- was transferred to the account of petitioner’s husband, Sri M.Venkata Seshaiah. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the cheque drawing power should not be suspended. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 18.09.2025. Since, the explanation was not satisfactory, the cheque drawing power was cancelled for a period of six months vide Roc.No.5299/2024-A1 dated 24.09.2025. 8. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued another show cause notice vide Roc.No.5299/2024-A1 dated 12.09.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the petitioner shall not be removed from the post of Sarpanch for three months for abusing her position or the powers vested in her. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 29.09.2025 pleading not guilty. The explanation was rejected and the petitioner was placed under suspension for a period of three months vide Roc.No.5299/2025-A1 dated 23.10.2025. The petitioner filed W.P.No.30921 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.11.2025 and the operative portion of the order reads as follows: “The 2nd respondent-District Collector is directed to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders on the same within a period of four (04) weeks from today. If no orders are passed within the prescribed time, the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.5299/2024-21, dated 23.10.2025, issued by the 2nd respondent, shall stand suspended. Further, the petitioner shall also cooperate with the enquiry.” 5 9. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2026, calling upon the petitioner to attend the inquiry on 12.01.2026. 10. Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 12.01.2026 (Ex.P1), directing the petitioner to submit explanation within seven days. But, the written instructions would indicate that the petitioner shall appear before the District Collector-2nd respondent by 28.01.2026. However, the petitioner neither attended nor submitted the explanation. 11. Thus, as seen Ex.P1, show cause notice and the references therein and Exs.P2 and P3 reveal that, after disposal of W.P.No.30921 of 2025, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2026 (Ex.P3) calling upon the petitioner to attend the inquiry on 12.01.2026 at 3:00 PM. The petitioner requested the 3rd respondent to furnish documents. However, the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent stating that the inquiry has been pending for quite a long time. According to the petitioner, Ex.P2 was served on 21.01.2026. 12. Ex.P1 dated 12.01.2026 was issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation, wherein it was mentioned about the alleged misappropriation of funds based on the report submitted by the 3rd respondent dated 12.01.2026. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the copy of the enquiry is not available to the petitioner and according to the petitioner, she is not aware of the contents of the report dated 12.01.2026 to submit an appropriate 6 explanation. The notice Ex.P1, delineates as to why the petitioner shall not be removed from the post Sarpanch. In such a scenario, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner must be given a fair opportunity to submit an appropriate explanation to revert the contents of the report dated 12.01.2026 submitted by the 3rd respondent. If such a procedure is being followed, it should be in consonance with the Principles of Natural Justice. 14. As per Ex.P1, the petitioner must submit an explanation within seven days. However, the written instructions would indicate that the petitioner has to appear before the District Collector-2nd respondent by 28.01.2026. Without going into this discrepancy, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, with the consent of both the learned counsel with the following directions: a) The petitioner shall make a representation to the District Collector-2nd respondent in two (02) days from today, requesting the 2nd respondent to furnish the requisite documents. b) The District Collector-2nd respondent shall consider the said request and furnish the documents, strictly in accordance with the Rules, within three (03) days thereafter, enabling the petitioner to submit a proper explanation. c) Thereafter, the petitioner shall submit her explanation in three (03) days. In the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is fixing three days 7 time since the petitioner is already aware of the allegations against her as per Ex.P1. d) The District Collector-2nd respondent shall thereafter consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.01.2026 SNI 8 189 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2053 OF 2026 Date: 29.01.2026 SNI