Muthyala Chandra Sekhar vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6560 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6560 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2022

Telangana High Court

Muthyala Chandra Sekhar vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 7 December, 2022

Bench: Lalitha Kanneganti

        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                   WRIT PETITION No.43898 of 2022

O R D E R:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the Impugned Order vide Letter A1/1449/2020-P-2 dated 28.11.2022 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of Gram Panchayat Funds set aside the Impugned Order vide Letter A1/1449/2020-P2 dated 28.11.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to continue the petitioners cheque signature power of the Gram Panchayat of Dongathurthi Village, Dharmaram Mandal, Peddapalli District and .....".

2. Mr. K. Sanjeev, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

by proceedings dated 28.11.2022, the District Collector has

withdrawn the cheque power of the petitioner. He submits that the

Collector has no authority to withdraw the cheque power of the

Upasarpanch and he has also relied on the order passed by this court

in W.P.No.38302 of 2022 wherein this court having considered Rule

42(1) of G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995 has held that the District

Panchayat Officer is the competent authority and if any person is

aggrieved by the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer, under

Rule 42(1) of G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20.01.1995, they can prefer an

appeal to the District Collector.

3. Mr. P. Kishore Rao, learned standing counsel for the

respondent grampanchayat submits that he will come up with a

counter affidavit.

4. This court on 14.10.2022 in W.P.No.38302 of 2022 has passed the

following order:

"This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

"to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring

(a) the show cause notice issued by Respondent No.2 vide SCN No.1235/2022/A1-Pts 2 dated 17-8-2022 alleging certain financial irregularities with regard to incurring amount of Rs.4,92,959/- from Gram Panchayat GP/Fifteenth Finance Commission FFC/State Finance SFC funds and also;

(b) the order passed by Respondent No.2 i.e, District Collector Panchayat Wing Sangareddy District vide Proceedings No.1235/ 2022/A1-Pts-2 dated 27-9-2022 withdrawing cheque drawing power of the Petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 37(1) and 37(5) of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, though the said provisions are not applicable and also without considering the detailed explanation submitted by her on 2-9-2022 in respect of the charge levelled against her in the above mentioned show cause notice and also the well-considered judgments laid down by the Hon'ble High Court while deciding the cases arising with regard to withdrawing of Cheque drawing powers of Upa-Sarpanch, as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to provisions of Telangana Panchayat Raj Act 2018 and Rules framed relating to certain taxes and the lodging of moneys received by the Gram panchayats and payment of moneys from Gram Panchayat Fund by issuing the G.O.Ms.No.30, Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief Dt.20-1-1995 apart from contrary to the well-considered judgments laid down by this Honble Court while deciding the cases arising with regard to withdrawing cheque drawing powers of Upa-Sarpanch and set aside the same".

2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Ravi Kiran Rao, representing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V. Rohith, submits that the impugned proceedings dated 27-09-2022 were issued by the respondent No.2-District Collector, whereby the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner, who is a Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Panchagoan of Narayankhed Mandal, are withdrawn with immediate effect as she has committed certain irregularities while incurring the expenditure of an amount of Rs.4,92,959/- from the G.P/SFC/FFC funds. Learned Senior Counsel submits that vide G.O.Ms.No.30,

Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief dated 20-01-1995, rules are framed for certain taxes and lodging of moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and payment of moneys from the Gram Panchayat Fund and as per Rule 41, drawing of moneys under Rule 40 by the executive authority shall be subject to the control and the conditions laid down by the District Panchayat Officer and as per Rule 42(1), the District Panchayat Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any executive authority from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order, provided that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the executive authority concerned and provided further that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the executive authority not to draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat pending the exercise of this power under this sub-rule. Further, it is submitted that under Rule 42(2), if any person is aggrieved by any order passed by the District Panchayat Officer, an appeal lies to the Collector. He submits that in this case, the Collector himself has passed the order, who is an appellate authority, and contrary to Rule 42(2) of the Rules, and as such, the order impugned is not sustainable.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue also does not dispute the fact that as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 20-01-1995, the District Panchayat Officer is the competent authority.

4. Taking into consideration Rule 42(1) of G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20- 01-1995, where the District Panchayat Officer is the competent authority, the order impugned dated 27-09-2022 is set aside as the said order passed by the District Collector is without jurisdiction.