Allowed

Pilla Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its District Collector

Telangana HC23 Mar 2011WP/23265/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a Gram Panchayat member challenging the inaction of the District Collector in passing an order on a show cause notice dated 5-3-2008. The petitioner alleged that the respondent shielded the accused Sarpanch by refusing to decide on the enquiry report.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Collector to pass an appropriate order on the show cause notice dated 5-3-2008 within two weeks, considering any explanation from the respondent; imposing Rs.5000 costs on respo

Pilla Narasimha Rao Vs State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.23265 of 2010 Date : 23-3-2011

¶2

Between : Pilla Narasimha Rao .. Petitioners and State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru and others .. Respondents

¶3

Counsel for petitioners : Sri Mangana Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri G.Elisha Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri M.Adinarayana Raju

¶4

The Court made the following :

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 on show cause notice dated 5-3-2008 issued by respondent No.1-District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, the learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶7

Regrettably, in spite of four adjournments, counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶8

The petitioner, a member of 9^th Ward of Madiwada Gram Panchayat, Akiveedu Mandal, West Godavari District, filed the present Writ Petition complaining of inaction of respondent No.2 in taking action on the show cause notice dated 5-3-2008. The petitioner averred that in view of serious allegations against respondent No.5, respondent No.2 appointed respondent No.3 as the Enquiry Officer for holding a detailed enquiry and that the latter has submitted his report in Roc.No.1342/2007, dated 8-12-2007. It is further averred that considering the said report, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 5-3-2008 calling for

¶9

explanation from respondent No.5 to show cause why he should not be suspended for a period of three months from the post of the Sarpanch. As no further action was taken on the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶10

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj pleaded his helplessness to assist the Court by stating that despite the requests from the Government Pleader’s office, the official respondents have not given any instructions.

¶11

Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that on the complaint given against his client, notices for recovery of certain amounts were issued on 20-6-2007 and 2-7-2009 by the District Panchayat Officer, that initially restrictions on exercise of cheque power were imposed on respondent No.5 and that later the said restrictions were lifted by proceedings dated 25-1-2011 of the District Panchayat Officer.

¶12

In my opinion, having issued the show cause notice, respondent No.1 should take the same to its logical conclusion. Non-passing of an appropriate order on the show cause notice gives strength to the petitioner’s allegation that respondent No.5 is being deliberately shielded by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 failed to discharge the statutory duty cast on him under Section 249(6) of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by failing to pass an appropriate order after issuing the show cause notice.

¶13

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to pass an

¶14

appropriate order on show cause notice dated 5-3-2008 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after considering the explanation, if any submitted by respondent No.5.

¶15

For failing to furnish instructions to the Government Pleader and not filing counter affidavit thereby denying proper assistance to this court, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are saddled with costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) payable to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of four weeks. If they fail to pay the costs, the Legal Services Authority shall recover the same through process of execution.

¶16

____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J

¶17

Date : 23-3-2011

¶18

Note: Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.

¶19

Pilla Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pilla Narasimha Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Vanaja Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Northern Power Distribution Corporation Electrical and Vs The Northern Power Distribution Company Limited

Bathuva-I Water Users Association (Borapothuvani Cheruvu) Vs District Collector, (Panchayat Raj)

J. Kumara Swamy Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

R.Reddi Krishna, Vs The Vayalpad Grampanchayat

Mr. N. Vijaya Raj, Vs M/s Dhanalakshmi Cooperative Housing Society Limited