Doppala Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

DOPPALA RAMANA, W/O BALAJI, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. EX.SARPANCH, R/O GOGINENI TOWERS, FLAT NO. 505, RAILWAY ROAD, GUNTUPALLI, IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

COMMISSIONER, PR AND RD, PVS ICON, NEAR PATHUR X ROADS TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VHR COMPLEX, VIJAYAWADA-520 002.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.A S C BOSE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

2

¶24

ORAL ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development.

¶26

2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

¶27

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings/show cause notice dated 14.08.2019 of the 3^rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide against to the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, apart from violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently to set aside the proceedings/show cause notice dated 14.08.2019 of the 3^rd respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶28

Vide Order dated 04.09.2019, this Hon’ble Court had directed the Respondents not to take any coercive steps including recovery of the amount in pursuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 14.08.2019 issued by the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam (Respondent No.3), for a period of two weeks. The said Interim Order was extended from time to time.

¶29

The facts in the present case would indicate that the Writ Petitioner served as the Sarpanch of Guntupalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District from 2013 up to 01.08.2018; that on 20.07.2019, a Notice was issued by the Divisional Panchayat Officer (Respondent No.4) raising certain allegations against the Village Secretary as well as the Petitioner (Ex.P.1); that the Writ Petitioner has submitted an explanation on 22.07.2019 (Ex.P.3).

¶30

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that despite submission of the explanation on 22.07.2019, the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, had issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner on 14.08.2019 (Ex.P.2).

¶31

3

¶32

Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Collector (Respondent No.3) does not have the power to initiate any Proceeding under the scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, 1994). Learned Counsel would submit that as per Section 265(1) of the Act, 1994, the Commissioner alone is the Competent Authority to initiate any such Proceeding. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the Sub Sections (7) & (8) of Section 2 of the Act, 1994, with respect to the definitions of ‘Collector’ and the ‘Commissioner’ respectively. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 has made a clear distinction between the functions of the District Collector and the functions of the Commissioner. He would submit that Section 265 empowers only Commissioner but not the Collector to initiate any such Proceeding and therefore, the impugned Proceeding issued by the District Collector (Respondent No.3) is beyond his jurisdiction.

¶33

Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the Counter Affidavit dated 13.12.2021. The Counter Affidavit essentially deal with the merits of the case as regards the alleged misappropriation committed by the Writ Petitioner but has not adverted to the jurisdictional aspect. The Counter Affidavit has not stated whether the District Collector has the power to initiate Proceeding under Section 265 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. However, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has referred to paras 10 & 11 of the Counter Affidavit which reads as under:

¶34

“10. In reply of Para 7 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the petitioner allegation is not correct since connected records was handed over by the 4^th respondent from Guntupalli Gram Panchayat and verified in expenditure side and identified misappropriated amount a tune of Rs.3,18,51,987/-.

¶35

In addition to the powers u/s 265 of APPR Act-1994 in G.O.Ms.No.3196/A (Pts-l) 64-3, Dt.10-02-1965 the Government issued guidelines to all Collectors u/s 127 of the APGP Act 1956 and was pending at the commencement

¶36

4

¶37

of the APGP Act 1964, such action can be continued under above said section 127 itself, as if the APGP Act 1956 was not repealed.

¶38

It is submitted that therefore, if any Sarpanch fails to pay the amount in pursuance of an order of the Collector directing him to pay such amount by reimburse the loss, waste or misappropriation of the money within the time prescribed under sub section (1) of Section 127 of the repealed Act 1956, such amount may be recovered under sub section (2) thereof as arrears of Land Revenue.”

¶39

This Court has perused Section 265 of the Act, 1994, which is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶40

“ 265. Liability of Sarpanch, President, [Chairperson] etc., for loss, waste or misapplication of

¶41

property:-

¶42

(1) If, after giving the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch, President, Vice-President, [Chairperson], [Vice-Chairperson] or the Executive Authority, the [Mandal Praja Parishad] Development Officer, the Chief [Executive Authority] an opportunity of showing cause to the contrary, the Commissioner is satisfied that the loss, waste or misapplications of any money or other property owned by or vested in the Gram Panchayat, [Mandal Praja Parishad] or as the case may be the [Zilla Praja Parishad] is a direct consequence of misconduct or gross neglect, on the part of such person, the Commissioner may, by order in writing, direct such person to pay to the Gram Panchayat , [Mandal Praja Parishad] or as the case may be, the [Zilla Praja Parishad] before the date fixed by him, the amount required to reimburse it for such loss, waste or misapplication, unless such person proves that he had acted in good faith.

¶43

(2) If the amount is not so paid, the Commissioner shall cause it to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and credited to the fund of the Gram Panchayat, [Mandal Praja Parishad] or as the case may be, [Zilla Praja Parishad].

¶44

(3) An appeal shall lie within thirty days from any decision of the Commissioner under this section to the Government whose decision thereon shall be final.

¶45

(emphasis supplied)

¶46

5

¶47

Admittedly, Section 276 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, repealed the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964; and therefore, any delegation of power under a guideline issued to the Collector under Section 127 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1956 or the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 would be of no avail.

¶48

In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Commissioner alone is the Competent Authority to initiate any proceeding under Section 265 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the impugned Proceedings dated 14.08.2019 (Ex.P.2) issued by the District Collector (Respondent No.3) are beyond his jurisdiction and therefore the impugned Proceedings dated 14.08.2019 (Ex.P.2) issued by the District Collector (Respondent No.3) are set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. It is clarified that this Order shall not preclude the Commissioner from initiating fresh proceeding in accordance with law.

¶49

With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed.

¶50

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶51

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

¶52

Vns

¶53

Dt: 02.07.2025

Doppala Ramana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doppala Ramana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vallepu Anjibabu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Neelam Venkata Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A Satyanarayana Vs the State of Ap

B Rana Prathap Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nallagorla Venkata Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syamala Kotireddy Vs the State of Ap