WP/26102/2006 of N. Roopsingh Naik S/o Venkataiah Vs The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) on 27 December 2006

ORDER:

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, hadtaken notice on 15.12.2006. Heard Sri Bali Reddy learned seniorcounsel representing the writ petitioner and also learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Panchayat Raj.

2. The writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus or any otherappropriate writ or order or direction, declaring order passed by the firstrespondent in Proc.No.B2/2161/2006, dated 24.11.2006, as arbitrary,illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and pass such othersuitable orders.

3. The impugned order dated 24.11.2006 reads as hereunder.

“ ORDER:

Whereas the Ex-Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Pocharamof Ghatkesar Mandal (Now MPTC) has been served a show cause notice vide reference 1[st] cited, for recovery ofRs.65,87,776/- under Gram Panchayat Funds, as arrears ofL.R. U/S.265(1) of A.P.P.R. Act, 1994 asking him to submitreplies and G.P. records. But Sri Nanavath Roop Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Pocharam (Now MPTC) avoidedto submit his replies and G.P. records to this office.

Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred U/S.265(1)of A.P.P.R. Act, 1994 the Ex-Sarpanch Gram PanchayatPocharam of Ghatkesar is directed to remit an amount ofRs.65,87,776/- to the funds of Gram Panchayat Pocharamwithin (15) days, for the date of receipt of these amount. If notthe Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, shall collect the saidamounts as arrears of LR U/S.265(1) of A.P.P.R. Act, 1994and remit the same to the funds of Gram Panchayat account.The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar is requested tointimate the challan. No. date of remittance to this office in duecourse.”

4. It is stated that the petitioner was elected as sarpanch forPocharam Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal in the year 2001 andthe term of office was for a period of five years and the same had beencompleted in August 2006. It is also stated that the Pocharam GramPanchayat is very near to Hyderabad and there were severaldevelopmental activities in the village. During his tenure as sarpanchof Gram Panchayat several developmental activities had undertakenand there was no complaint from any quarter against the petitionerduring his tenure as sarpanch of Pocharam. It is also stated that in therecent elections held to the post of sarpanch, his opponent gotelected. It is also stated that first respondent issued show cause noticedated 21.8.2006 to the petitioner in his proceedingsRoc.No.B2/2161/2006 levelling four charges against the petitioner. The details of the charges also had been narrated. It is also stated that

after receipt of the said notice, the petitioner approached the office ofthe Gram Panchayat to verify relevant records to meet the chargeslevelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that all therecords had been sent to the first respondent. Immediately, on12.9.2006 the petitioner made a representation to the first respondentrequesting him to furnish records enabling him to offer explanation, butthe first respondent did not consider the said request and the entirematerial on which the petitioner is expected to offer his explanation isin the nature of documents and without looking into the records thepetitioner will not be in a position to submit his explanation. Furtherthe transactions had taken place over a period of five years and it isnot possible to offer his explanation without going into the records. It isalso stated that since there was no response from the first respondent,the petitioner thought that further action had been dropped againsthim. But to his utter surprise, the petitioner received an order dated24.11.2006 in the impugned proceedings directing him to remit anamount of Rs.65,87,776/- to the funds of Gram Panchayat exercisingthe powers conferred under Section 265(1) of the Act. The said orderis questioned on several grounds inclusive of non-affording anyopportunity and being in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. In the light of the facts and circumstances well explainedinasmuch as it would be difficult for the writ petitioner to submit hisexplanation unless the petitioner is permitted to verify the records forover a period of five years, this Court is of the considered opinion thatthe impugned order dated 24.11.2006 is hereby set aside and thepetitioner to be given an opportunity by the respondents to verifyconcerned records for the last five years so as to enable him to submithis explanation. Inasmuch as the show cause notice dated 21.8.2006

already had been issued, the writ petitioner is at liberty to approachrespondents 1 and 2 to verify the records within a period of two weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order and respondents 1 and 2to permit the petitioner to verify all the relevant records so as to enablehim to submit proper explanation in relation to the show cause noticeand on such verification the writ petitioner is expected to submit hisexplanation or objections, if any, within a period of four weeks, thereafter, on receipt of such explanation or objections from thepetitioner the same to be considered and appropriate decision is to betaken in this regard in accordance with law.

6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Noorder as to costs.

Date: December 27, 2006.

__________________P.S.NARAYANA, J.

BSB