APHC010084492026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4693/2026 Between: 1. GANGULA KOTAIAH, S/O. GUMVAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH, R/O. PARITALAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, SANTHARNAGALURU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. 3. THE DEPUTY MANDAL DEVELOPMENT, (OFFICER, PR AND RD SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. PARITALAVARIPALEM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PARITALAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL, BAPATIA 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 more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the proceedings in Roc. No. 27/2026-A1, dt. 21-01-2026 passed by the 2nd respondent by p. 2 suspending the petitioners cheque power for the period of 3 months in respect of Paritalavaripalem Gram Panchayat, Santamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, without conducting inquiry, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Panchayat Raj Act 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 Roc. No. 27/2026-A1, dt. 21-01- 2026 passed by the 2nd respondent by suspending the petitioner’s cheque power for the period of 3 months in respect of Paritalavaripalem ,Gram Panchayat Santamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The petitioner, Sarpanch of Paritalavaripalem Village, Santhamagaluru Mandal, Prakasam District, filed the above writ petition, impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide R.O.C.No.27/2026-A1, dated 21.01.2026 (Ex.P1), withdrawing the cheque power for a period of three months, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice vide R.O.C.No.623/2025-B, dated 10.12.2025 (Ex.P3), pointing out the misappropriation of funds and calling upon the p. 3 petitioner to submit an explanation. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 31.12.2025 (Ex.P2). Thereafter, without conducting any inquiry, the proceedings impugned were issued. He would also submit that the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 violate Rule 42 of the Rules relating to certain taxes & lodging of moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and payment of money from the Gram Panchayat Fund issued vide G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development and Relief, dated 20.01.1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), 4. Per contra, Sri Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted the instructions of respondent No.2 and would submit that respondent No.2 exercised the powers vested under the second proviso to Rule 42 (1) of the Rules. He would also submit that the withdrawal of the cheque power is a temporary measure pending the enquiry. Respondent No.2 will complete the inquiry as contemplated under Rule 42(1) of the Rules, within six (06) weeks. 5. Rule 42(1) of the Rules, which is relevant, is extracted herewith: “The District Panchayat Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit an order any [Sarpanch] from drawing the moneys of the gram panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order: Provided that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the [Sarpanch] concerned : Provided further that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the [Sarpanch] not to draw the moneys of the gram panchayat pending the exercise of his powers under this sub-rule.” 6. A perusal of Rule 42(1) of the Rules, the District Panchayat Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit any Sarpanch from drawing moneys of the Gram Panchayat, for such period. The first proviso mandates the opportunity for the hearing. The second proviso p. 4 delineates that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction not to draw the moneys, pending the exercise of powers. 7. Thus, while there is no dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the District Panchayat Officer, the first proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules mandates an opportunity of hearing before any action, whereas the second proviso can be pressed into as an interim measure. 8. In the case at hand, as seen from Ex.P1, the authority exercised the jurisdiction vested under the second proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules. The instructions submitted by respondent No.2 would further indicate that respondent No.2 will complete the inquiry as mandated under Rule 42(1) of the Rules within six weeks. 9. 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, directing the learned respondent No.2 to complete the inquiry, pursuant to Ex.P3 show-cause notice and Ex.P2 explanation, strictly adhering to the procedure mandated under Rule 42(1) of the Rules by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 23.02.2026 Note: C.C. by 25.02.2026 B/o TVN p. 5 54 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.4693 OF 2026 Date: 23.02.2026 Note: C.C. by 25.02.2026 B/o TVN