SATOOR NARASIMHULU GOAD Vs. DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER MAHABUBNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition arises out of a petition filed for suspension of the cessation order passed by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar, dated 22.9.1983 pending the disposal of the original petition. The Divisional Panchayat Officer sent proceedings dated 23.9.1983, to the petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bodepalli, Gadcherla Taluk stating that the Sarpanch did not conduct the Grama Sabha meeting within 180 days from the date of the last Grama Sabha meeting conducted on 30.12.1982, as required under section 25(2) of the A.P. Gran Panchayat Act, 1964. It is stated that on the verification of the records the Sarpanch conducted the last Grama Sabha meeting on 30.12.1982, and subsequently no Gram Panchayat meeting was conducted within the prescribed period thereafter. It is also farther stated that the Gram Panchayat meeting said to have been conducted on 26.4.1983, is introduced in the minutes book and it is bogus. It is further stated that under section 25 of the Act. The petitioner ceased to perform the powers and functions of the Sarpanch Gram Panchayat with immediate effect and the Sarpanch is requested to hand over the complete charge of the office of the Sarpanch. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed original petition before the District Munsif of Mahabubnagar challenging the order. Pending disposal of the OP. the petitioner filed a petition to suspend the proceeding dated 23.9.1983.The learned District Munsif passed an order on 18.10.1983, stating that the very filing of the petition enables him to continue in office and though there is no provision under the Gram Panchayat Act, to grant suspension but however in the interests of justice status quo orders are passed. On a petition for clarification another order was passed on 27.10.1983, stating that if the petitioner was not in the office as on 18.10.1983, would not entitle him to occupy the vacated office though the very filing of the" petition would entitle the petitioner to continue in office.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the conditional order is not justified and in the interests of justice the order should have been passed enabling 'the petitioner to continue in office till the disposal of the Original Petition. The learned Counsel for the respondent at the outset contended that the OP. itself is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and there is no provision in the Gram Panchayat Act or the rules framed thereunder empowering the Munsif Magistrate to suspend the operation of the order or enable the petitioner to continue in Office till the disposal of the original petition.

(3.) At the outset it is necessary to get at the purport of section 25 of Gram Panchayats Act which controls the decision. Section 25 of the Gram Panchayats Act deals with the powers and functions of the Sarpanch and sub-section (2) obligates the Sarpanch to convene the meetings of the Gram Panchayat at least once within 180 days of the last meeting and if the meeting of the Gram Panchayat is not held within a period of 90 days from the last meetings and no meeting of the Grama Sabha is held, the Sarpanch ceases to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Sarpanch. Consequent upon cessation the remedy is provided under sub-section (3) to convass the correctness or validity of such cessation. Section 25(3) of the Act is as follows: