APHC010449802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 22870/2025 Between: 1. GARIKAPATI MANJU BHARGAVI, W/O NANDIPAMULA JASHUA DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 17-44, SUDDIPETA VILLAGE, MYLAVARAM VILLAGE, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PR AND RD), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE MYLAVARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYLAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDALAM, NTR DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 6. THE SUBTREASURE OFFICER, MYLAVARAM MANDALAM, NTR DISTRICT 7. SRI MNV CHITTI BABU, WARD MEMBER, 12TH WARD, O/O MYLAVARAMGRAMA PANCHAYAT, MYLAVARAM VILLAGE p. 2 AND MANDALAM, NTR 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to DECLARE the proceedings in e-File No. 63611/2024-3 dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent purportedly with drawing my cheque power and conferring the same upon the 4th respondent without considering my explanation dated 04.01.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, null and void and violative of the provisions of AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and GO. Ms. Ms. No. 30 dated 20.01.1995 and Contrary to Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the proceedings in e-File No.63611/2024-3 dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 operation of the proceedings in e-File No.63611/2024-3 dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent purportedly withdrawing my cheque power and conferring the same upon the 4th respondent, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 vacate the interim orders granted on dt 30.08.2025 in WP No.22870 of 2025 in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE p. 3 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra 4. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri J.V.Phaniduth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Rama Rao, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for the respondents 1 to 4; Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent, and Ms.Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the 6th respondent. 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide e-file No.63611/2024-3, dated 11.08.2025, withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner, the above writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 3rd respondent, District Panchyat Officer, issued notice vide ROC.No.6311/2024, dated 18.12.2024, pointing out certain irregularities. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 04.01.2025 by annexing relevant documents (Ex.P2). Thereafter, the proceedings impugned were issued without considering the explanation. 4. Per contra, Sri K.Rama Rao, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, would submit that the petitioner filed the above writ petition without availing remedy provided under Rule 42(2) of the Rules Relating to Certain Taxes and other Lodging of Moneys Received by the Gram Panchayat and Payment of Money from the Gram Panchayat Fund notified vide G.O.Ms.No.30 Panchayat Raj, p. 4 Rural Development and Relief (Pts.III), dated 20.01.1995, (for short “the Rules”). He would further submit that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered, and thereafter, the authority passed the order. 5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the 7th respondent made a complaint dated 15.07.2024 through the PGRS system against the petitioner, alleging irregularities while discharging duties as Sarpanch of Mylavaram village. Thereafter, the 7th respondent filed W.P.No.3943 of 2025, complaining of inaction on the part of the official respondents therein. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.02.2025, based on the instructions submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the authority set the law into motion. 6. In fact, as narrated supra, a show cause notice dated 18.12.2024 was issued to the petitioner, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation (Ex.P2). However, in the proceedings impugned, there is no reference to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In unnumbered Paragraph-2 of the proceedings, it was mentioned that the petitioner submitted an explanation on 04.01.2025. Having mentioned the explanation of the petitioner, though the order impugned runs into three pages, the contents of the explanation were not even referred to or considered in the proceedings. 7. The act of the 3rd respondent in failing to consider the explanation; the order impugned suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice. Though an appeal would lie against the order impugned under Rule 42(2) of the Rules, since the order impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court, suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition is maintainable. Page 5 of 6 8. It is an established settled principle of law that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to granting relief in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that the discretionary jurisdiction is to be exercised or refused to be exercised by the High Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The rejection of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy being a self-imposed restriction, in appropriate cases where there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction and a strong case is made out, the High Court always has the discretion to grant any writ. It is essentially a Rule of policy and convenience, and therefore, despite the existence of an alternative remedy, it is within the discretionary jurisdiction of a High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Apex Court in Whirlpool Corpn. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks1, observed that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. Further held that the alternative remedy does not operate as a bar where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental Rights; violation of the principle of natural justice; the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction, or the vires of an Act is challenged. 10. In Harbans Lal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,2, it was held that the Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and the Court must consider the pros and cons of the case and may interfere 1 (1998) 8 SCC 1 2 (2003) 2 SCC 107 p. 6 if it concludes that the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights, where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 11. In this case at hand, as observed supra, the authority failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and thereby violated the principles of natural justice. 12. Given the discussion supra, the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide e-file No.63611/2024-3, dated 11.08.2025, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3rd respondent, the District Panchayat Officer, NTR District, shall consider the explanation dated 04.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner along with relevant annexures and pass a reasoned order by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD