Telangana High Court
WP/27130/2005 of Smt. Velpula Leelavathi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2005
MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27130 of 2005 Dated:29.12.2005 Between: Smt. Velpula Leelavathi, W/o. V. Srinivasulu, Uravakonda Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and another.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION No.27130 of 2005
Dated:29.12.2005
Between: Smt. Velpula Leelavathi, W/o. V. Srinivasulu, Uravakonda Village and Mandal, Anantapur District.AND
..... PETITIONER
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Secretariat,Hyderabad, and another ......RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
WRIT PETITION No.27130 of 2005
The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Uravakonda Gram Panchayat, Ananthapur District.The District Collector, the second respondent herein, passed orders on 06.12.2005,purportedly under sub Section (6) of Section 249 of the Andhra Pradesh PanchayatRaj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), suspending the petitioner as Sarpanch. Whiledoing so, the second respondent relied on the report submitted by the RevenueDivisional Officer, Ananthapur. Assailing the proceedings of the second respondent,the present writ petition is filed raising various grounds in support of the writ petition,praying to declare the impugned proceedings as illegal and violative of principles ofnatural justice.
It is, inter alia, urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugnedorder was not preceded by a notice as mandated by sub section (6) of Section 249of the Act. Be that as it is, it was also brought to the notice of this Court thataggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before theGovernment under Section 264(1) of the Act and that the arguments were heard by the Government on 21.12.2005. Having regard to this, this Court while suspendingthe impugned order directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to get furtherinstructions in the matter. Today, after receiving telephonic instructions, the learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that the revision petitionfiled by the petitioner was allowed. In that view of the matter, the cause of action forthe petitioner does not survive. Therefore, the other issues need not be gone into inthe writ petition.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
____________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
29.12.2005
vs