K KRISHNAIAH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. The ten petitioners herein are members of Poli Gram Panchayat, Rajampet Mandal, Cuddapah District. The 4th respondent is the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Section 25 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, obligates every sarpanch to convene meetings of the Gram Panchayat, so that acleast one meeting is held in every month The sab-section also Jays down "If the Sarpanch or such person fails to discharge that duty with the result that no meeting of the gram panchayat is held within a period of ninety days from the last meeting....as aforesaid, he shall with effect from the date of expiration of period of ninety days....as aforesaid cease to be the Sarpanch or as the case may be, cease to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Sarpanch," Sub-section (3) of Section 25 lays down that every such cessation as is referred to in sub-section (2) shall be intimated by the Divisional Panchayat Officer in writing to the Sarpanch or the person concerned and if he disputes the correctness of such cessation, the executive authority, shall, at the direction of the gram panchayat or the Commissioner may, within a period of two months from the date on which the intimation is given, apply to the District Munsif having jurisdiction over the area in which the office of the gram panchayat is situated for decision. Complaining that the 4th respondent did not convene a meeting within a period of ninety days as enjoined under sub-section (2) of Section 25, and therefore he ceased to hold the office of Sarpanch, the ten petitioners herein riled a Writ Petition No. 19687/1988 and the same was disposed of by Upendralal Waghray J. with the following direction: 'I do not want to go into the merits of the controversy raised. I consider it appropriate to give a direction to the Collector (Panchayat), Cuddapah district to enquire into the allegations contained in the representation dt. 2-12-1988 and 12-12-1988 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. I consider it appropriate that both the Petitioner and the Sarpanch are given an opportunity before a decision is taken in the said enquiry. The petitioners to appear before the Collector on 16-1-1989 or on any other date to which it is adjourned. After concluding the enquiry within the aforesaid period, the Collector, to take action as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act."

(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court on13-12-1988, the petitioners herein filed a representation before the District Collector, the 1st respondent, contending that the 4th respondent did not convene meetings of the Gram Panchayat on 15-9-1988 and 19-11-1988 and as there was no meeting after 22-8-1988 he ceased to be the Sarpanch. No notices were issued to the members, and service of notices by Certificate of posting is not contemplated in law. They also stated that 'it is doubtful whether the expenses incurred for sending of notices to the members has been accounted for in the Cash Book of the Panchayat'. Service by certificate of posting, they contended, was not contemplated under Rule 2 of G.O. Ms. No. 235 Panchayat Raj Department dated 5-3-1965. The other contentions raised by them in their representation are not relevant for deciding the present Writ Petition.

(3.) The 4th respondent submitted his written representation before theDistrict Collector, refuting the allegations levelled by the petitioners. After considering the rival Contentions, the District Collector held that the Sarpanch has not committed any irregularity or illegality and therefore the cessation of office as contemplated under Section 25 (2) is not attracted. The Collector has referred to the Judgment of this court reported in Pichi-Reddy vs. Katuni Danamurthy and Others and observed that in view of the rulings of the Supreme Court in Shyabuddin Sab vs. Municipality of Gadag and Narasimhiah vs. Singri Gowda "the orders of the High Court will remain over-ruled".