Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2009
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
- This Court issued Rule Nisi on 04.08.2009 and W.P.M.P.No.20629 of 2009, this Court granted interim direction directing respondent No.1 to consider the representations dated
12.01.2009 and 27.07.2009 within a period of six weeks.
It is stated that the representations have been considered and an order dated 09.09.2009 had been made.
Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit.
The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the allegations relating to the financial irregularities, as specified in the show cause notice, had not been considered and thus, had not been answered in the order proceedings No.A6/6415/2007-Pts dated 09.09.2009.
Certain submissions were made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and also Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel representing respondent No.4 as well in this regard.
The writ is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not taking action against respondent No.4 in pursuance notice proceedings No. A6/6415/2007-P dated 17-11-2008 of respondent No.2 and under Section 249 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and to pass such suitable orders.
Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Interim direction made by this Court had already been specified supra.
No doubt, respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit denying the said averments along with the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, wherein the averments had been averred in detail. The other material papers, show cause notice and explanation had also been placed before this Court. The order dated 09.09.2009 had also been placed before this Court.
Certain submissions were made pointing out certain findings recorded by the Collector, Panchayat Raj in Karimnagar in the order dated 09.09.2009. It is stated that certain financial irregularities which had been specified in the show cause notice and in the explanation, if any, in this regard had been conveniently omitted and these aspects had not been considered at all.
This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to this aspect in the present writ petition. Liberty is given to the writ petitioner to challenge the same, if he is so advised.
With the above observation, since no further orders need be passed in the writ petition, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4th December, 2009 AMD ______________ P.S.NARAYANA, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — s. 249.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 04 Dec 2009. The bench was P S NARAYANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.