Dismissed

Ramachandraiah, v. The District Collector (Panchayats)

Telangana HC11 Oct 2004WA/1529/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The bench found no merit in the appeal. They noted that the District Panchayat Officer's order restored the Sarpanch's funds with conditions for counter-signatures to protect public interest. This discretionary interlocutory order was not interfered with.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed. No costs.

Ramachandraiah, Vs The District Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO : 1529 of 2004

¶8

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/09/2004 in WP NO : 9628 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.)

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ramachandraiah, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, Upa Sarpanch R/o. Gunthapalli Gram Panchayat, Badvel Mandal, Cuddapah District.

¶11

..... APPELLANT

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The District Collector (Panchayats), Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.

¶14

2 The District Panchayat Officer, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.

¶15

3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District. 4 The Sarpanch, Gunthapalli Gram Panchayat, Gunthapalli, Badvel . Mandal, Cuddapah District.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.P.CHANDRAMOULI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : MR.P.RADHA KRISHNA

¶20

The Court made the following :

¶21

J U D G M E N T: (Per Sri Justice B.Sudershan Reddy)

¶22

We find no merit in this Writ Appeal. This Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction normally does not interfere with such discretionary interlocutory order as the one passed by the learned Single Judge in the case on hand.

¶23

2 . Be that as it may, the District Panchayat Officer restored the powers of the Sarpanch to draw the funds under the categories specified subject to the condition that whenever any funds have to be drawn, the counter signature of Panchayat Secretary, Gunthapalli and also the counter signature of Mandal Parishad Development Officer are made compulsory. The Order of the District Panchayat Officer protects the public interest and the funds of the Gram panchayat.

¶24

3 . In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.

¶25

(B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, J)

¶26

Dated: 11.10.2004.

(K.C.BHANU, J)

gs/msv

1 The District Collector (Panchayats), Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.

¶31

2 The District Panchayat Officer, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District.

¶32

3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Rajampet, Cuddapah District.

¶33

4 The Sarpanch, Gunthapalli Gram Panchayat, Gunthapalli, Badvel . Mandal, Cuddapah District.

¶34

5. 2 CCS toThe GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad (OUT)

¶35

6. 2 CD copies

Ramachandraiah, v. The District Collector (Panchayats)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandraiah, v. The District Collector (Panchayats)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Musuku Mallaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The A.P. State Electricity Board, Vs Sree Rayalayaseema Alklies and Allied Chemicals Ltd.

Padmati Subba Rao, Vs D.N.R. College Association, Bhimavaram

M/s Vijaya Co-operative House Building Society, Vs K.Gopal Reddy

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Suman Gour

M/s. Santhosh Wines Vs Government of A.P.