N Sundaraiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned order in ROC.No.2887/2024-A2 dt.27.11.2024 cancelling the cheque drawing powers of petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, without considering the explanation of

¶23

petitioner and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently set-aside the same and restore the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 impugned order in ROC.No.2887/2024-A2 dt.27.11.2024 issued by Respondent No.4 and restore the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. VINOD K REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ &

¶28

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI M. SUDHIR, SC FOR ZPP, MPP &

¶30

GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

::1::

¶33

APHC010014872025

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶35

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO: 770/2025

Between:

N Sundaraiah

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶45

1.VVINOD K REDDY

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶47

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶48

2

¶49

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA'

¶50

WRIT PETITION NO: 770/2025

¶51

This Court made the following

¶52

ORDER:

¶53

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶54

of India seeking the following relief;

¶55

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in t e natui« .i vvT.iT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of me Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned order in ROC NO.2887/2024-A2, dated 27.11.2024 cancelling the cheque of Petitioner without giving an opportunity to drawing powers the explanation of the Petitioner, without considering Petitioner and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Pnnc.ples of natural justioe. Articles 14, 21 of the Constitut.on of India, and restore the cheque consequently set-aside the same drawing powers of the Petitioner and pass

¶56

The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is an elected Yanamadala Village. Chejerla Mandal, SPSR Nellore Sarpanch for his duties as Sarpanch of the Village, District and while discharging 29.07.2024 before the the villagers made a complaint on that the Petitioner committed misappropriation Respondent alleging

¶57

¶58

3

¶59

of funds from the receipt of the “R.O Water Plant”^which was constructed out of MPLADS funds are public funds. After^such complaint the Petitioner was issued with show cause notice on 02.11.2024 calling the Petitioner to submit an explanation for the allegations made at show cause notice, for which the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.11.2024 requesting a short extension of 15 days for the submission of detailed written explanation. After the submission of representation^{thePetitioneris} under impression that the Respondent Authorities, particularly^the 4*^ Respondent may not proceed further till the submission of explanation as requested by the Petitioner through representation.

¶60

In compliance of the representation the Petitioner^submitted his explanation on 24.11.2024 and the same was received by the Respondent Authorities on 28.11.2024. But without considering^the explanation and without waiting for the period as requested by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.4 passed impugned order dated 27.11.2024 taking away the power of the Petitioner i.e., drawing the funds from the competent authority. Hence the Writ^Petition.

¶61

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that since the Petitioner not submitted his explanation within stipulated

¶62

4;

¶63

time, the 4 Respondent proceeded further and passed impugned order only after issuance of show cause notice to the^Petitioner. As such, the 4 Respondent complied with the steps / procedure as contemplated under Rule 42(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Rules,1995.

¶64

He further submits that the order impugned dated^27.11.2024 IS an appealable order U/s 42(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj^Rules, 1995 before the Respondent-District Collector. Without^availing such alternative remedy the Petitioner approached this Court^and • invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction which is contrary^totheRules and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶65

Heard Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant^Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and after having heard both the counsel that in and after perusal of material placed on record, it is observed compliance of Rule 42(1) of Rules, 1995 the 4'^ Respondent issued which the Petitioner submitted his show cause notice, for and requested for 15 days time for submitting representation detailed written explanation. If that is so, the 4»'^{Respondentwould} have been passed an order either rejectihg the representation or

¶66

::5::

¶67

accepting the same. But in the absence of any express^order, it can be presumed the Respondent Authorities granted time to the Petitioner i.e 15 days time for submission of a detailed written explanation. It is further observed that the Petitioner^submittedhis explanation to the show cause notice dated 02.11.2024^(receivedon 04.11.2024) seeking extension of time for submission^ofadetailed written explanation on 24.11.2024 and the same was^receivedby the Respondent Authorities on 28.11.2024. Even the^{dateofreceipt} also within 15 days time from the date of request of^{timeof15days.} That being so, the passing of impugned order as if^there is no explanation, is contrary to the principles of natural^justiceand principle of fair and reasonable opportunity to the^Petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that once the impugned order^passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and^opportunity, the alternative remedy as was canvassed by the Respondents cannot be accepted and also unsustainable.

¶68

In view of the submission made by both learned counsel, it is appropriate that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order vide ROC.No.2887/2024-A2, dated 27.11.2024 passed by the 4*'' Respondent and consequently directing the 4'^ Respondent herein to consider the explanation^of

¶69

::6:;

¶70

the Petitioner dated 24.11.2024 and pass speaking orders afreshⁱⁿ accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶71

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶72

//TRUE COPY//

¶73

Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S^T^1OFFICER

¶74

To,

¶75

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings^at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶76