APHC010032392026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2091/2026 Between: 1. M SIVA NARAYANA, S/O. MERUVA RAM DAS, AGED ABOUT 41 YRS, OCC. SARPANCH, R/O.D.NO.1.125, BHAVANARAYA TEMPLE STREET, VONTIMITTA MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,522237. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516001. 3. 3. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, Y.S.R DISTRCT, 516001. 4. 4. THE DEPUTY MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, VONTIMITTA MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516001. 5. 5. THE KONDAMACHUPALLI GRAMPANCHYAT, REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KONDAMACHUPALLI MANDAL, Y.S.R DISTRICT, 516001 ...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 an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the proceedings in 2 C.No.252/A3/2025, dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded and a colorable exercise of power contrary to well-established legal principles and the provisions of the Panchayat Raj, 1994 and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings 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 suspend the proceedings in C.No.252/A3/2025, dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri P.Sashidar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, appeared for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel, appeared for the respondents 4 and 5. 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Roc.No.252/A3/2025 dated 22.10.2025 (Ex.P1), wherein the cheque power of the petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of Kondamachupalli Gram Panchayat, was withheld from 22.10.2025 to 02.04.2026 under Rule 42(1) of the Rules relating to certain taxes and lodging of money received by the Gram Panchayat and payment of money from the Gram Panchayat Fund (herein after referred to 3 ‘Rules’) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief Department dated 20.01.1995, as illegal and arbitrary, the above writ petition was filed. 3. A show-cause notice vide Rc.No.252/2025/A2/Pts dated 09.09.2025 (Ex.P2) was issued by the 2nd respondent. As no explanation was received, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, in fact, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 04.10.2025 (Ex.P3). However, the same was not considered. He would further submit that no reasons were assigned in the proceedings impugned. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would submit that the petitioner did not submit any explanation, as seen from Ex.P1. He further pointed out Ex.P3 doesn’t contain any acknowledgement. He would also submit that an appeal lies under Rule 42(2) of the Rules, and without availing the said alternative remedy; the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings impugned dated 22.10.2025 (Ex.P1), in the writ petition are legally sustainable? 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of the show-cause notice (Ex.P2), and thereafter, the 4 proceedings impugned dated 22.10.2025 (Ex.P1) issued by the 2nd respondent. There is a dispute regarding the explanation (Ex.P3) submitted by the petitioner. The explanation (Ex.P3) filed along with the writ petition does not contain any acknowledgement. Whether the petitioner submitted the explanation or not is a disputed question of fact. This Court, at this juncture, is not inclined to record any finding on the said aspect. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will avail the remedy of statutory appeal in terms of Rule 42(2) of the Rules before the District Collector, YSR Kadapa District and raise all the grounds before the appellate authority. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the matter, at the stage of admission with the consent of all the learned counsel, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy under Rule 42(2) of the Rules before the District Collector. If such an appeal is filed, the learned District Collector shall consider the same, strictly as per the Rules and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 27.01.2026 SNI 5 174 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2091 OF 2026 Date: 27.01.2026 SNI