PANDRINKI NARASIMHULU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a member of the Yeleswaram Gram Panchayat Parthipadu Taluk of East Godavari district, for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the second repondent herein, and the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat, Yeleswaram, the third respondent herein, from holding the two meetings of Yeleswaram Gram Panchayat in furtherance of the notice dated 21st January, 1974 issued by the and respondent herein on 29th January, 1974 or any other date thereafter. Under that notice a copy of which is filed along with the writ petition, a special meeting of the Gram Panchayat is scheduled to be held in the office of the Gram Panchayat at 9.00 A.M. on 29th January, 1974 to appove the revised budget of 1973-74 and also to approve the budget estimate for the year 1974-75, as the resolution adopted at the meeting held on 7th December, 1973 was not correct and required review. On the same date at 10 A.M. another meeting is also proposed to be held to review the subjects disapproved at the ordinary meeting held on 30th November, 1973.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the Sarpanch, the second respondent herein, was spending the amounts of the Gram Panchayat without due authorisation and misappropriating the same. The petitioner as well as the other members of the Gram Panchayat were bringing this fact to the notice of the Panchayat authorities. In order to cover up this unlawful expenditure the and respondent had convened a meeting of the Panchayat on 3oth November, 1978 at 11-oo A.M. The agenda of the meeting, among other minor matters, included the approval of the several amounts spent by him for the months of August, September, and October, 1973. Nine members who were present at that meeting disapproved the expenditure and also submitted a signed petition to the District Collector, East Godavari bringing to his notice the unlawful expenditure incurred by the and respondent and also informing him that the said expenditure was not approved by the panchayat in its resolution dated ^oth November, 1973. Again another meeting was convened on 19th December, 1978 by the and respondent on a requisition of the 9 members of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of passing the budget sanction. In that meeting the and respondent once again included in the Agenda all the expenditures which was not approved at the earlier meeting. Once again the Gram Panchayat by a majority of 9:6 disapproved the expenditure. It is alleged by the petitioner that with a view to get these items of expenditure and the budget approved, the Sarpanch, the and respondent herein, now managed to secure the custody of two members of the Gram Panchayat by name Vagu Veeraju and Bangaru Ramulu who were among the nine members that had previously opposed the approval of the expenditure in the two meetings held on 3oth November, 1973 and 19th December, 1973 and proposed to convene this meeting.

(3.) It is contended that the and respondent is not competent to convene a meeting to re-consider the resolution already adopted until the expiry of three months from the date of the previous resolution. Reliance for this contention is placed upon rule 10 of the Gram Panchayats Rules contained in Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act. That rule reads as follows:- "No resolution of a Gram Panchayat shall be modified or cancelled within three months after the passing thereof, except at a meeting specially convened in that behalf and by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat supported by not less than one-half, of the total strength of members."