Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from the permanent removal of the petitioner, who was elected as Sarpanch of Venkatachalam Gram Panchayat in 2021. The petitioner challenged the order of the second respondent, the District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, passed in ROC.No.5299/2024-A1 dated 12.01.2026 (also referenced as 12.02.2026), permanently removing her from the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner alleged that the order was illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and in breach of principles of natural justice. Prior to the impugned order, the petitioner's cheque drawing power was suspended on 24.09.2025, and she was suspended from the post of Sarpanch on 23.10.2025. She filed W.P. No. 30921 of 2025, which was disposed of on 26.11.2025, directing the District Collector to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders within four weeks; if no orders were passed, the suspension order would cease. Since the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated time, the suspension order lapsed, and the petitioner resumed her office. Subsequently, the third respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2026 directing the petitioner to attend the office on 12.01.2026 to submit documents regarding alleged misappropriation of funds. The second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12.01.2026. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice in W.P. No. 2053 of 2026, which was disposed of on 30.01.2026 with directions for the petitioner to make a representation, for the District Collector to furnish documents, for the petitioner to submit an explanation, and for the District Collector to pass orders as per the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner then requested a copy of the report, submitted an explanation dated 04.02.2026, and received a notice dated 09.02.2026 for personal hearing on 11.02.2026. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 4188 of 2026 on 10.02.2026 challenging the invocation of Section 249 of the Act, but after the impugned removal order was passed, that writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order suffered from violation of natural justice. The petitioner had attended the office of the District Collector on 11.02.2026, sought an adjournment, and the District Collector had agreed to consider it, yet proceeded to pass the order. The counsel also contended that the District Collector had not recorded independent findings on the allegations of misappropriation of funds, and relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sonam Lakra v. State of Chhattisgarh. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reporting no counter, argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 249-B(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and that the writ petition should be dismissed. He also submitted that the petitioner failed to attend the inquiry despite notice and that the District Collector had recorded independent findings. The court framed the point for consideration as whether the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2026 were legally sustainable. The extracted judgment text ends without recording the final decision, directions, or operative order. Therefore, the final holding, ratio decidendi, and outcome are not available from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - High Court's power to issue writ despite availability of alternative remedy - Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 249-B(6) - The petitioner challenged the order of the District Collector permanently removing her from the post of Sarpanch as illegal and arbitrary. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 249-B(6). The Court was examining whether to entertain the writ petition despite the statutory remedy; final holding not available in extracted text (Paras 4, 6-7). B) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 249 - The petitioner contended that she attended the office of the second respondent on 11.02.2026, sought an adjournment, and the second respondent agreed to consider it, yet passed the impugned removal order without recording independent findings. The respondent submitted that the petitioner failed to attend the inquiry despite notice. The Court was to determine whether the principles of natural justice were complied with; final direction not available in extracted text (Paras 3-4, 12). C) Panchayat Raj - Removal of Sarpanch - Misappropriation of Funds - Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Sections 249, 249-B - The District Collector initiated proceedings based on allegations of misappropriation of funds, issued show cause notice, and later passed permanent removal order. Previous writ petitions directed completion of enquiry, supply of documents, and submission of explanation. The Court was considering the legality of the permanent removal; final order not extracted (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proceedings impugned dated 12.01.2026 (Ex.P7) are legally sustainable or warrant interference; whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedy under Section 249-B(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; whether principles of natural justice were violated in passing the removal order; whether the District Collector recorded independent findings regarding allegations of misappropriation of funds.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in extracted text
Law Points
- Natural justice
- alternative remedy under Section 249-B(6) of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act
- 1994
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Article 14 of Constitution of India
- requirement of independent findings by District Collector
- procedure for removal of Sarpanch under Section 249 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act
