APHC010045512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.85 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-3 [3552] Kamireddy Venkata Narasimha Rao ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats, learned Government Pleader for Home, learned Government Pleader for Revenue. CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 31st January 2026 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.33807 of 2025. 2. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Eluru District, Eluru whereby the petitioner had been directed to remit the misappropriated amount of Rs.4,46,481/-. 2 3. The writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned single Judge with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that according to the established principles of law, availability of an alternate remedy had been no bar to considering the matter by a constitutional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially in a case where principles of natural justice had been violated. 5. We do not dispute the proposition of law as has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,1 whereby the Apex Court held that when an alternate remedy was available to a person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell within any of the exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under:- “27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.” 1 (2021) 6 SCC 771 3 6. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon2 wherein the Apex Court held as under:- “55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 7. The issue that falls for our reconsideration is whether the learned single Judge was right in relegating the petitioner/appellant to avail the alternate remedy and whether the appellant is correct in saying that the principles of natural justice had been violated by the official respondents in passing the order impugned. 8. It can be seen from the record that the petitioner was working as a Gram Sarpanch of Sriramavaram Gram Panchayat during the relevant period. The allegation was that the house taxes collected by the Sarpanch from the villagers were not remitted to the Government treasury but were spent at his discretion. It was further alleged that the funds received through various grants namely 15th Finance Commission and 14th Finance Commission which ought to have been used for construction of roads, drainage systems, payment of sanitation workers’ salaries were not utilized but were misappropriated. The allegation further was that the house tax money and the 2 [(2010)8 SCC 110 : 2010 INSC 428] 4 arrears due from the fish ponds were used for personal expenses and were not remitted into the Panchayat funds. Some other allegations were also levelled. 9. In the context of the aforementioned allegations, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Eluru was directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. A report was then submitted on 09.12.2024. Based upon the report so prepared on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, a show cause notice dated 26.12.2024 came to be served upon the petitioner which was appropriately replied by virtue of the reply notice dated 15.03.2025. On a perusal of the reply to the show cause notice, it can be seen that the same was quite comprehensive. 10. Another fact which can be noticed from the reply so submitted by the petitioner/appellant herein was that at no point of time, did the petitioner feel handicapped in submitting an appropriate reply to the show cause notice on account of non-availability of the relevant records. However, it appears that as an after thought, much after the submission of the reply to the show cause notice on 15.03.2025, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.08.2025 in which a prayer was made for verification of the records. It was stated by him that the Gram Panchayat records be brought to the office of the District Panchayat Officer or the place specified by the petitioner for verification. 11. On a perusal of the order passed by the District Collector, which was impugned in the writ petition, it can be seen that the District Collector has 5 specifically held that the version of the Sarpanch i.e., the petitioner was not correct as the Gram Panchayat records were available in the Gram Panchayat Office only and was not possible to bring the same either to the office of the District Panchayat Officer or any other place, as was sought to be suggested by the petitioner. The District Collector also specifically stated that the said representation had been filed only with a view to continue his tenure as a Sarpanch as also to avoid any further action against him. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant, with a view to support and buttress his case that it was unsafe for him to approach the Gram Panchayat Office, has drawn our attention to some representations which were filed by the petitioner earlier in the point of time addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Eluru District dated 08.04.2025. 13. In this representation, the petitioner had sought police protection with a view to enable him to conduct Gram Panchayat meetings and the threat was attributed to some persons with whom the petitioner had political differences. There is another letter dated 21.04.2025 which is placed on record which conveys the same apprehension. 14. It is not out of place here to mention, as was suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant before us in the open Court, that the petitioner had been discharging his duties as a Sarpanch for the said Gram Panchayat from April, 2021 till May, 2025 when the cheque power came to be withdrawn by the official respondents. There is no specific averment made in the petition at 6 all that after the receipt of the show cause notice by the official respondents, the petitioner was in any manner prevented from having access to the relevant records in the office of the Gram Panchayat. In fact, not a murmur has been made in the writ petition that any effort to gain access to the relevant record had at all been made by the appellant herein. 15. In our opinion, the appellant cannot gain much by placing reliance upon the representation dated 28.08.2025 to carve out a case for setting aside the order impugned on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and interference on that ground by this Court in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take a view different from the one which is taken by the learned single Judge. We, however, allow the petitioner/appellant to prefer an appeal within two (2) weeks from today and in case the same is done, the time limitation prescribed for filing the appeal would not come in the way of the Government to consider the same in accordance with the Rules. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD 7 8 153 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL No.85 of 2026 Dt:31.01.2026 AMD