Dismissed

Bodapatla Ailam, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Sept 2017WP/30884/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a suspension order passed under Section 249(6) of the AP Panchayat Raj Act against an elected Sarpanch. The Court held that the order was not bad in law and directed the respondent to conduct an enquiry with due opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to conduct enquiry with due opportunity, complete it within suspension period and pass appropriate orders.

Bodapatla Ailam, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30884 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Counsel for respondent No.4.

¶5

The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Kukunoorpalli Gram Panchayat in the elections held on 23.07.2013 for a period of five years. It appears that the Commissioner of Police, Siddipet, lodged a complaint on 28.03.2017 for taking action against the petitioner and on the basis of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.07.2017 invoking Section 249(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act), leveling certain allegations. Though the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within a specified time, he did not submit the same within time. But, he submitted his explanation on 04.09.2017. Since the explanation did not reach the competent authority within time, the second respondent passed an order on 05.09.2017 placing the petitioner under suspension for three months, pending enquiry by invoking Section 249(6) of the Act. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

A perusal of the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 shows that as many as five allegations were leveled against the petitioner including involving himself as an accused in three

¶7

¶8

crimes and in granting permission for construction of houses in Government land. These allegations have to be enquired by the competent authority and in view of the nature of allegations, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is bad in law.

¶9

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition, and the Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. But, the second respondent shall conduct the enquiry by giving due opportunity to the petitioner, complete the same within the period of suspension and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

(A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 13.09.2017 vs

Bodapatla Ailam, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bodapatla Ailam, v. The State of Telangana

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

Bantu Shankar Vs State of Telangana

Boya Ramanjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary

Kalva Lingam, Vs The State of Telangana

Pottipati Rajeshwari Vs The Union of India

Thakur Amar Singh, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sri Vishnu Srirama Constructions Vs The Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure