B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) HAVING due regard to the question involved in the writ petition and having regard to the fact that the interim order sought by the petitioner has the effect of almost passing a final order, the matter has been heard on merits and being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 is the Sarpanch, petitioner No. 2 is the Upa-Sarpanch and petitioner No. 3 is a Ward Member of Gram panchayat, Kosgi village, Mahabubnagar district. They have challenged the impugned proceedings (1) No. A2/573/97 dated 11-7-97 (2) No. A2/573/97 dated 11-7-97 and 3. No. A. 2/573/97 dated 11-7-97 passed by the 2nd respondent viz. , the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Mahaboobnagar, respectively as against the petitioners suspending them from their respective offices for a period of three months, in exercise of the powers conferred on the 2nd respondent under sub-section (6) of Section 249 of A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. (Act No. 13 of 1994, in short the Act ).

( 3 ) MR. Yella Reddy, learned senior advocate for the petitioners has contended that the impugned proceedings and the orders were passed merely on the ground that a criminal case is pending against the petitioners on certain charges of manhandling the Executive Officer, Junior Assistant and the Watchman of the Gram Panchayat, Kosgi on 4-4-1997 at 10. 00 p. m. and the respondent no. 2 had no legal authority to pass such orders under the proceedings except under clear circumstances enumerated in sub-section (6) of Section 249 of the Act and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated and deserve to be quashed. He has also contended that the impugned orders are not passed based upon the first ground mentioned in the annexure to the proceedings and they were passed based on the second ground only.

( 4 ) MR. Ramana Reddy, the learned senior advocate appearing for Respondent No. 4 and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 have justified the impugned proceedings on the ground that they were not passed or issued only on such a ground alone as contended above, but clearly within the implications of the provision supra and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with such orders.

( 5 ) THE convenience warrants the repetition of sub-section (6) of Section 249 of the Act which reads thus :"249. Powers of Government to remove Sarpanch, President or chairman etc. :- (1) xx xx xx to (5) xx xx xx

( 6 ) IF the District Collector is of the opinion that a Sarpanch or a Upa-Sarpanch or any member of a Gram Panchayat or the government are of the opinion that any president or Vice-President or the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any member of a mandal Parishad or Zilla Parishad wilfully omitted or refused to carry out the orders of government for the proper working of the concerned local body or abused his position or the powers vested in him, and that the further continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interests of the concerned local body or the inhabitants of the village, Mandal or District, the District collector or as the case may be, Government may, by order, suspend such Sarpanch or upa-Sarpanch or President or Vice-President, as the case may be, the Chairman or Vice- chairman or member from office for a period not exceeding three months, pending investigation into the said charges and action thereon under the foregoing provisions of this Section: "provided that no order under this subsection shall be passed unless the person concerned has had an opportunity of making a representation against the action proposed; provided further that it shall be competent for the Government to extend, from time to time, the period of suspension for such further period not exceeding three months, so however, that the total period of suspension shall not exceed six months; provided also that a person suspended under this sub-section shall not be entitled to exercise the powers and perform the functions attached 10 his office a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document