APHC010055432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3214/2026 Between: 1. D MARY NAVA RATNA KUMARI, W/O. DANAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-200/1, NEAR BHASHYAM PUBLIC SCHOOL, GRAM SARPANCH, KAIKALURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, KUMMARI STREET, KAIKALURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 521333 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYETIRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AP SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 2. THE COMMISSIONR PANCHAYETI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AP SECRETARIATE, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH - 534006. 4. THE DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU - 534001. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU - 534006. ...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 Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to discharge her functions as SARPANCH despite the impugned suspension of the petitioner, an elected Sarpanch, issued Proceedings No. p. 2 82116/A1/2025 dated 19.07.2025 has lapsed as the suspension cannot be more that statutory period i.e., 6 months and in the absence of any valid order of extension by the Commissioner as required under Section 249-B(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2020, is as illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to not to obstruct the petitioner legitimate duties as SARPANCH except due procedure established by the law and pass order or orders in accordance with law and to 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 direct the respondents to not to obstruct the petitioner legitimate duties as SARPANCH in absence of extension of suspension and pass order or orders in accordance with law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Ms. K. Krishna Deepthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat during the elections held in 2019. Respondent No.3, by proceedings No.82116/A1/2025, dated 19.07.2025 (Ex.P1), suspended the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, for a period of six months, by following the procedure prescribed under Section 249-B (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as „the Act‟), on the ground of misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.4,04,29,431/-. Thereafter, the period of suspension of p. 3 the petitioner was not extended by the Commissioner as per the second proviso of Section 249-B (5) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the absence of an extension of suspension of the petitioner by the Commissioner-respondent No.2, keeping the petitioner under suspension, beyond six months, is arbitrary and impermissible. 4. The Writ Petition was listed on 04.02.2026 and adjourned at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader to secure instructions from respondent No.2. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted the written instructions of respondent No.2. In the instructions, it was noted as follows: “5) It is respectfully submitted that the Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru has forwarded an e-file for suspension extension of Smt. D. Mary Navaratna Kumari, Sarpanch, Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat from 19.01.2026 to 02.04.2026, as per Section 249-B(5) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 6) It is further submitted that proposals of the Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru has been examined and the following instructions were issued to the Collector & District Magistrate, Eluru, a) Reasons for extension of suspension period of Smt., D. Mary Navaratna Kumar, Sarpanch (U/s), Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat are not mentioned in the e-file and the same may be submitted for taking further action in the matter. b) Recovery notices were already issued and if explanation is received from the Sarpanch, necessary further action as deemed fit may be taken in the case. c) In case Inquiry against the Sarpanch is already completed, further action may be taken based on the findings of the final inquiry p. 4 report under relevant sub-sections of Section 249-B. In such case, there is no necessity for further extension of suspension period.” 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions of respondent No.2, in the proposals of respondent No.3, sent to the 2nd respondent, no reasons were mentioned seeking extension of suspension period. The recovery notices were already issued, and the explanation was received from the petitioner. Based on the findings of the final inquiry, further action will be taken. 7. Ms Krishna Deepthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the petitioner has been cooperating with the inquiry and also cooperate with the authorities, during any further inquiry, if any. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, with the following directions: (i) Respondent No.3 shall allow the petitioner to continue as Sarpanch of Kaikaluru Gram Panchayat, forthwith, since the period of six months has lapsed from the date of Ex.P1 and there is no extension as mandated under the second proviso of Section 249-B(5) of the Act. (ii) The petitioner shall co-operate during the inquiry, if any, regarding the allegations made against the petitioner by the authorities. (iii) This order will not preclude the authority from conducting an inquiry, if any, regarding the allegations made against the petitioner, strictly as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 06.02.2026 TVN p. 5 186 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3214 of 2026 Date: 06.02.2026 TVN