B.KAMALA KUMARI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the parties are common and the subject matter is similar, both these writ petitions are heard and disposed of together. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 34451 of 2012.

(2.) I have heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the official respondents and Sri Bomma Reddy Sanjeeva Reddy, the impleaded respondent, who appeared as party-in-person.

(3.) The petitioner is an Ex-Sarpanch of Pamarru Gram Panchayat during the year 2001-2006. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have initiated proceedings against her for recovery of Gram Panchayat funds and SGRY and Swajaladhara funds. Two separate show-cause notices were issued to her. When a distraint order was issued against the petitioner on 25.08.2007, she has filed W.P. No. 18869 of 2007. This Court allowed the said writ petition by order, dated 18.02.2011, wherein it was held that as no enquiry was contemplated under Section 265 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), the very initiation of the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short 'the Revenue Recovery Act') was unsustainable. Accordingly, the distraint order was set aside leaving the official respondents with the freedom to recover the amounts, if any, found due after following the procedure contemplated in law and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation.