The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Dokiparru Gram Panchayat in Gudlavalleru Mandal of Krishna District. She was elected in 2001. On an allegation that she contributed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from out of Gram Panchayat funds to Mandal Panchayat funds, without proper approval from the higher authorities, action was initiated under Rule 42 of the Rules relating to taxes and lodging of monies and payment of monies by the Gram . Panchayat, promulgated in G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 20-1-1995 (hereinafter.-called, the Rules). A show cause notice was issued on 19-7 -2005. The petitioner submitted explanation on 30-8-2005. After considering the same, the first respondent issued the impugned order bearing proceedings No.3065/04 Pt.5, dated 12-9-2005, permanently prohibiting the petitioner from drawing monies of the Gram Panchayat. This order is assailed in the writ petition. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent justifying the impugned order. It is stated that the Mandal Parishad Development Officer accorded the administrative sanction on 22-10-2002 for an estimated outlay of Rs.3,00,000/- to Dokiparru Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Mandal Parishad without obtaining the approval of Commissioner of Panchayat Raj as per guidelines in G.O.Ms. No.987 PR (Pts-IV), dated 12-11-1979. Therefore, the petitioner was prohibited from drawing the Gram Panchayat funds.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. First, he contends that under Rule 42(1) of the Rules, the District Panchayat Officer concerned may pass an order prohibiting the executive authority from drawing monies from the Gram Panchayat.

After amendment to Section 2(12) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1994, by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act 22 of 2002, the executive authority is Panchayat Secretary, and therefore, the District Panchayat Officer cannot suspend the cheque drawing powers of the Sarpanch. Secondly, the learned counsel would urge that under Rule 42(1) of the Rules, the District Panchayat Officer has no power to permanently prohibit a Sarpanch from drawing monies of the Gram Panchayat. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that at relevant time, when rules were made, whenever there is no executive authority, as such, the Sarpanch alone is the executive authority, and therefore, the District Panchayat Officer can suspend the cheque drawing powers of the Sarpanch as well. Secondly, he submits that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Rule 42(2) of the Rules to file an appeal before the District Collector against the impugned order, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

3. Insofar as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in E. V. Raghava Reddy v. The District Panchayat Officer is concerned, I have already taken a view that Rule 42(1) of the Rules enables the District Panchayat Officer to prohibit even the Sarpanch from drawing the Gram Panchayat funds. Further, it is brought to the notice of this court that by G.O.Ms.No.444, dated 29-12-2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, amended Rule 42(1) of the Rules by substituting the words "executive authority" by words "Sarpanch". Therefore, there is no necessity to adjudicate this issue. Insofar as the other submission is concerned, a reading of Rule 42(1) of the Rules would show that it is not competent for the District Panchayat Officer to prohibit the Sarpanch from drawing Panchayat funds permanently. The provision enables the authority to prohibit the Sarpanch from drawing funds only for such period as may be specified in the order. The authority, therefore, cannot suspend cheque drawing powers of Sarpanch permanently.

4. It is a basic principle of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. Such principle was first laid down in Taylor v. Taylor. This principle: which may be called