N SUNDARAIAH v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-01-10. N SUNDARAIAH v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
'i IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVA^! ^ ■o (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 770 OF 2025 Between: N. Sundaraiah, S/o. N. Venkata Reddy, Aged 78 years, Occ. Sarpanch, R/o. Yanamadala Village, Chejerla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ... PETITIONER'-^' AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department PVS Icon Buildings, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, SPSR Nellore'District, Nellore. ' 5. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Atmakuru, SPSR Nellore District. 6.
The Panchayat Secretary, Yanamadala Gram Panchayat, Yanamadala Village, Chejerla Mandal SPSR Nellore District. ^ ... RESPONDENTS 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 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.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No. 6: SRI M. SUDHIR, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following: ORDER ::1:: APHC010014872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 770/2025 Between: N Sundaraiah ...
PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ... RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VVINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA' WRIT PETITION NO: 770/2025 This Court made the following ORDER: Constitution This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the of India seeking the following relief; one in t e “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly me natui« . i vvT. iT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 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 law as Petitioner and without following the due process of Pnnc. ples of illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of of India, natural justioe. Articles 14, 21 of the Constitut.
on and restore the cheque consequently set-aside the same drawing powers of the Petitioner and pass an elected 2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is 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 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 the Petitioner is the under impression that the Respondent Authorities, particularly 4*^ Respondent may not proceed further till the submission of explanation as requested by the Petitioner through representation. 3. 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. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that since the Petitioner not submitted his explanation within stipulated 4; time, the 4 Respondent proceeded further and passed impugned Petitioner.
As order only after issuance of show cause notice to the such, the 4 Respondent complied with the steps / procedure as under Rule 42(1) of the A. P. Panchayat Raj contemplated Rules,1995. 27. 11. 2024 5. He further submits that the order impugned dated Rules, IS an appealable order U/s 42(2) of the A. P. Panchayat Raj availing 1995 before the Respondent-District Collector. Without and • such alternative remedy the Petitioner approached this Court to the Rules invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction which is contrary and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the Government Petitioner and Sri P.
Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Pleader for Panchayat Raj and after having heard both the counsel that in and after perusal of material placed on record, it is observed of Rule 42(1) of Rules, 1995 the 4'^ Respondent issued compliance which the Petitioner submitted his show cause notice, for and requested for 15 days time for submitting representation Respondent would detailed written explanation. If that is so, the 4»' or have been passed an order either rejectihg the representation ::5:: order, it can accepting the same. But in the absence of any express to the be presumed the Respondent Authorities granted time Petitioner i. e 15 days time for submission of a detailed written submitted his explanation. It is further observed that the Petitioner explanation to the show cause notice dated 02. 11. 2024 (received on of a detailed 04. 11. 2024) seeking extension of time for submission written explanation on 24. 11. 2024 and the same was received by the Respondent Authorities on 28. 11.
2024. Even the date of receipt also within 15 days time from the date of request of time of 15 days. there is no That being so, the passing of impugned order as if explanation, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and Petitioner. It is principle of fair and reasonable opportunity to the 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. 7. In view of the submission made by both learned counsel, it is appropriate that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by setting dated aside the impugned order vide ROC. No. 2887/2024-A2, 27. 11. 2024 passed by the 4*'' Respondent and consequently directing the 4'^ Respondent herein to consider the explanation of ::6:; the Petitioner dated 24. 11.
2024 and pass speaking orders afresh in 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. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S^T^1OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development at Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Rural 2. The Commissioner and Director, Panchayat Raj and Guntur Development Department PVS Icon Buildings, Tadepalli, District. 3. The District Collector (Panchayat Wing), SPSR Nelfere District, Nellore. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. y'' 5. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, AtmaT^uru, SPSR Nellore District. Yanamadala 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Yanamad^ Gram Panchayat, Village, Chejerla Mandal SPSR Nellore District. 7. One CC to Sri V.
Vinod'fC Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri M. Sudhi'r, SC for ZPP, MPP& Gram Panchayat[OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED; 10/01/2025 % •r o\ ORDER r 01 FEB 2025 O A*// ^ , Current becuon WP. No. 770 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W. P. WITHOUT COSTS
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.