RAVADA RAMULU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the 1st respondent District Collector, Panchayat Wing, Vizianagaram, in Rc.No.4438/92,A dated 12.4.1994 under which the petitioner was directed to credit an amount of Rs. 15,904/-to the Gram Panchayat fund within 15 days failing which the same would be recovered from him by invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was elected as Sarpanch of Jannivalasa in the year 1989. It is stated by the petitioner that the District Panchayath Officer, Vizianagaram issued a show-cause notice in Rc.No.4438/92,A dated 26.12.1992 stating that certain complaints had been received against him alleging misutilisation of Rojgar funds to the tune of Rs.15,900/- and calling upon him to show-cause as to why the cheque drawing power conferred on him should not be withdrawn. Under the same notice it was also ordered that pending passing of final orders, he should not withdraw any amounts from the bank accounts of the Gram Panchayat. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner states that he submitted his explanation denying the allegations, but no further orders are passed by the respondents. The petitioner states that after more than an year the 1 st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 12.4.1994 purported to be in exercise of the powers under Section 150(1) of the A.P.Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') stating that it has been established that the petitioner had misappropriated the Rojgar funds to the tune of Rs.15,900/-, and therefore, he shall credit the said amount to the Gram Panchayat funds within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said proceedings. It was also stated in the impugned proceedings that in the event of failure to credit the said amount, the same would be recovered from the petitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Challenging the said proceedings dated 12.4.1994 the present writ petition has been filed contending 'inter alia' that the impugned proceedings are in violation of principles of natural justice, since no prior notice was issued to him before exercising the powers under Section 150(1) of the Act.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, the District Panchayat Officer filed a detailed counter. In the said counter it has been stated that the impugned proceedings dated 12.4.1994 is only a notice served on the petitioner calling upon him to reimburse the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat and to explain as to why the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act should not be invoked and the petitioner should have submitted his explanation explaining the reasons under which he could not remit the amount but he ought not to have filed the writ petition straightaway. It is contended that there is an alternative remedy of appeal as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 150 of the Act, but the petitioner failed to exhaust the said remedy of statutory appeal before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the contention of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him before issuing the impugned proceedings, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the show cause notice dated 26.12.1992 was issued calling upon the petitioner to explain the misuse of Jawahar Rojgar funds and on the basis of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Extension Officer (PTS) submitted a report confirming the loss caused to the Gram Panchayat to the tune of Rs.15,900/-, and in pursuance thereof, proceedings under Section 150 (1) of the Act have been initiated for recovery of the amount misused. It has also been stated in the counter-affidavit that the District Panchayat Officer had personally visited the Gram Panchayat on 18.12.1993 and recorded the statement of the petitioner wherein, he admitted, categorically, that he had misused the Jawahar Rojgar funds of the Gram Panchayat and requested one week time to remit the said amount.