APHC010707952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36633/2025 Between: 1. SRI KASIREDDY KOTI REDDY,, S/O. K. OBUL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH, R/O. SUDANAGUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522238 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PVS ICON BUILDING, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522501. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523001. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523001. 5. THE SUDANAGUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SUDANAGUNTA GRAM PANCHAYAT, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523240 p. 2 ...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 a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 5 Respondent, in issuing the Special Gram Sabha Agenda Notice dated 17.12.2025 and in conducting the Special Gram Sabha dated 19.12.2025 for bifurcation of Ramapuram Village from Sudanagunta Gram Panchayat.and for constitution of a separate Ramapuram Gram Panchayat, despite the existence of a duly elected Gram Panchayat which is competent to pass resolution as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, The Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Declaration of Villages) Rules, 2007, , G.O.Ms.No.542 dated 03.12.2007, G.O.Ms.No.97 dated 27.11.2025, and the Memo dated 28.11.2025, and is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and further direct the Respondents not to proceed further relying on special Gramasabha meeting and its resolution except by initiating the proposal through the elected Gramapanchyat by way of resolution as per rules and by strictly following the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under law 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 direct the Respondents not to proceed further relying on special Gramasabha meeting dated 19.12.2025 and its resolution except by initiating the proposal through the elected Gramapanchyat by way of resolution as per rules and by strictly following the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under law and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE p. 3 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondent No.5 in issuing Special Gram Sabha Agenda notice dated 17.12.2025 and conducting Special Gram Sabha on 19.12.2025, for bifurcation of Ramapuram Village from Sudanagunta Gram Panchayat, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 2. Heard Sri G. Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was elected as the Sarpanch of Sudanagunta Gram Panchayat, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District in March 2021 and has been continuing in the office. Respondent No.2 issued a Memo No.3054240/CPR&RD/D1/2025, dated 28.11.2025. The Secretary of respondent No.5, without informing the petitioner about the purpose of conducting the meeting, obtained signatures on 17.12.2025 by misrepresenting the facts. The Secretary of respondent No.5 altered the agenda and conducted the Gram Sabha without following the procedure. The Gram Sabha was commenced on 19.12.2025, and hardly 50 members attended the meeting. When the Secretary of respondent No.5 read the agenda regarding bifurcation, the petitioner immediately objected. Despite the said objection, a resolution was passed. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.5. It was contended, inter alia, that on the representation of the villagers for bifurcation of Ramapuram Village from Sudanagunta Gram Panchayat, a special Grama Sabha was held on 19.12.2025. The majority of the public had agreed for bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, a resolution was passed on p. 4 19.12.2025, and the same was communicated to respondent No.4 – the District Panchayat Officer. The State Government has stalled the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat. At present, there is no intention for the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat. The Grama Sabha was conducted on 19.12.2025, and a Dhandora was made on 17.12.2025. Notices were posted in the public places regarding the conduct of the Grama Sabha. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 reiterated the contentions as mentioned in the writ affidavit and the counter-affidavit. 6. This Court, on 03.02.2026, directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the entire record relating to the conduct of Grama Sabha on 19.12.2025. Accordingly, Sri S. Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel, produced the original records on 10.02.2026, wherein it was noted that the Upa sarpanch signed the resolution dated 19.12.2025. 7. As seen from the special resolution register, the Gram Sabha was conducted on 19.12.2025. The number of persons who attended the Grama Sabha is 117. The Government prescribed Rules denoting the method and manner in which Grama Sabha is to be conducted vide G.O.Ms.No.367, PR & RD (Pts.1), dated 28.08.1998. These rules are called “Rules relating to the holding of meetings of Grama Sabha”. Rule 4 says that no meeting shall be held unless notice of the place, date and time of the meeting has been given at least two clear days before the date of the meeting. This rule further prescribes that the notice shall be given (i) by beat of drum in the village (ii) by affixing the notice at three conspicuous places in the village (iii) by affixing the notice on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat office. As per rule 6, all questions which came up before the meeting shall be decided by ascertaining the consensus of the opinion of the members of Grama Sabha through the p. 5 speeches delivered by them and at the end of the meeting, the Presiding Member shall read the proceedings of the Grama Sabha and get the approval of the members and the members shall raise their hands in token of their approval. Rule 9 lays down that an attendance register shall be maintained in which the Presiding member shall obtain the signature or thumb impression of all the members present at the meeting of the Grama Sabha. 8. In the case at hand, as seen from the records produced before this Court, the procedure contemplated under Rule 6 was not adhered to. Except for noting the members present, it does not indicate the opinion of the members through speeches. It was not even noted in the register about the speeches of the participants in the Grama Sabha. Apart from that, the agenda prepared on 17.12.2025 does not contain the signature of the Sarpanch. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Panchayat Secretary appeared in the Court, initially pleaded that he was not aware of the practice of getting the signature of the Sarpanch below the agenda. When the court pointed out by showing the other agendas, he would submit that in respect of other agendas, the signatures of both the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary are available. Thus, the contention of the petitioner regarding conducting Grama Sabha, without adhering to the procedure, is well-founded. This court warns the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat not to repeat the mistakes. 10. Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted the instructions of respondent No.1 vide UO.NoteNo.989335/GAD01- AROENS(PNPR)/6 2019-AR, dated 27.07.2025. As seen from the instructions, the boundaries of the administrative units (Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Revenue Villages) will be frozen as on 01.01.2026 and shall remain unchanged during the period from 01.01.2026 to 31.03.2027, in order to ensure complete coverage and avoid duplication or omission during Census operations. Page 6 of 7 11. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, the Grama Sabha said to have been conducted on 19.12.2025, was not conducted, as per the procedure mandated in G.O.Ms.No.367 dated 28.08.1998. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Grama Sabha conducted on 19.12.2025 regarding the bifurcation of the Gram Panchayat is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.02.2026 TVN p. 7 299 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36633 of 2025 Date: 24.02.2026 TVN