TULASI NARSIMHACHARYULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector, (Panchayat Wing) Nalgonda, under section 25 (2) of the Village Panchayats Act. On 3rd November, 1965, a show cause notice was issued by the Collector to the petitioner who is the Sarpanch of Sarvaram Village, Huzurnagar Taluk of Nalgonda District, alleging inter alia that he has failed to hold three consecutive meetings for three months from 16th April, 1965 to 28th July, 1965 and therefore has ceased to be the Sarpanch of the said village Panchayat. In reply to the notice, he stated that he held three meetings, one on 16th April, 1965, the other on 13th July, 1965 and the third on 28th July, 1965 The Collector without deciding this question expressly issued the impugned order declaring that the petitioner has ceased to be the Sarpanch, the inevitable result of which is that the Collector must have held that the petitioner did not hold meeting on 13th July, 1965. Even assuming that the petitioner failed to hold meeting in July, 1965, even then he does not come within the purview of section 25 of the Act. The phrase 'fails to discharge that duty in the consecutive period of three months' in so far as it occurs in the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act II of 1964. was considered by a learned Judge of this Court, Jaganmohan Reddy, J., as he then was in Bhupati Venkanna v. State of A.P., 1968 1 An.W.R. 213.

(2.) It was held that " The said phrase appearing in section 25 (2) of the Act, have significance in the context of the duty of holding at least one meeting each month not being discharged before the Sarpanch could cease to function as such. Under the above provision it must be shown that he has not held a meeting during the period of "three consecutive months".

(3.) In this case the Sarpanch having held a meeting in September, it has to be , seen whether he has failed to hold another meeting within three consecutive months thereafter i.e., in the months of October, November or December. It is not denied that he has held such a meeting in December, even though at the end of the month. But that makes no difference in as much as the conditions prescribed therein for attaching penalty are not satisfied".