Telangana High Court
WP/33597/2010 of J.Ramesh, Vs TheGoverment of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2010
MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.33597 of 2010 DT.31.12.2010 Between: J.Ramesh … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector (Panchayat Raj Wing), Karimnagar District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.33597 of 2010
DT.31.12.2010
Between:
J.Ramesh
And
… Petitioner
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector(Panchayat Raj Wing), Karimnagar District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri A.Ravinder Counsel for respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following ORDER:
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:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedingsNo.2520/A6-Pts/2010, dated 16.12.2010, of respondent No.1, wherebyhe has suspended the petitioner, Sarpanch of Dongathurthi GramPanchayat, Dharmaram Mandal, Karimnagar District.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that on certain seriousallegations against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension underSection 249(6) of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Though a notice wasissued on 14.10.2010, the petitioner has failed to submit his explanation.
At the hearing, Sri A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner,has submitted that on the previous occasion when the petitioner wasplaced under suspension, he submitted his explanation on 28.06.2010
and that under the bona fide impression that the same explanation wouldbe considered by respondent No.1 before passing the impugned order,his client could not submit a fresh explanation. The learned counsel,however, requested that his client may be given a chance to submit hisexplanation to the charges levelled against him and that respondent No.1may consider the same and reconsider his decision, if he is satisfied onthe explanation that may be offered by the petitioner.
As this submission of the learned counsel appears reasonable,the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to submit hisexplanation within two weeks. On receipt of such explanation,respondent No.1 shall consider the same and if he is satisfied with theexplanation offered by the petitioner, he may reconsider his decisionregarding suspension.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.42585 of2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
Date:31.12.2010Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB