Telangana HC Suspends the Power of Sarpanch for Misusing the Funds of Nadipet Gram Panchayat, Grants 15 Days for Submitting the Explanation

Must Read

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Follow us

On 05.06.2020, in Sambaru Vani v. The State of Telangana and Others, the Telangana High Court allowed the writ petition. It granted a period of 15 days to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The explanation is regarding the misuse of the Gram Panchayat funds. Moreover, the Court suspended the power of the petitioner to sign the cheques of Gram Panchayat funds. It will continue until the respondent authority adjudicates the matter. Further, it must pass an order afresh as directed by the Court.

Brief of the Facts

The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Nizamabad District. He deals with the funds of the Gram Panchayat. He has the power to sign the cheques of the Gram Panchayat fund. The allegation is that the petitioner has misused his power and the funds of Gram Panchayat. The respondent passed an order to suspend the petitioner of his post as Sarpanch. This was for a period of six months. The respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within twenty-four hours.

The petitioner requested a 15 days period to submit a detailed explanation and bills. The respondent did not consider his request and issued the notice. This was done without looking into the lockdown period of two months. The respondent disregarded the mandate of Section 37(5) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018.

The Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner has already given a preliminary explanation. The petitioner requested for further time of fifteen days for the explanation. Along with the explanation, he will also submit documents in support of his submission. The respondent called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation on 13.05.2020. The respondent passed the impugned order on 15.05.2020. Earlier, the order was of suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch for a period of six months. The respondent authority issued notice without considering this request of the petitioner. The impugned order violates the principles of natural justice.

The Contention of the Respondent

The Government pleader submitted that it would be risky to provide time to the petitioner. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of the Panchayat. Hence, the petitioner could tamper with the records of the Panchayat. Considering the reasonable apprehension, the respondent authority did not accept the request. As a result, the need to grant extra time to the petitioner does not arise. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondent justifies the action taken.

Observation of the Court

The Court observed that the said time afforded to the petitioner is not a reasonable time. Further, the petitioner sought for grant of another 15 days. However, the respondent authority rejected it. The Court noted that the respondent passed the impugned order without considering the request of the petitioner. Hence, this action violates the principles of natural justice.

Order of the Court

The Court directed the petitioner to submit his explanation to the respondent authority. It also ordered the submission to be on or before 15.06.2020. Moreover, the Court directed that the petitioner would submit relied upon documents as well. The respondent authority would consider the same. Above all, it will pass order afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner.

The Court ordered that the petitioner would not deal with the funds of the Gram Panchayat. The Court suspended the power of the petitioner to sign the cheques of the Gram Panchayat fund. This will continue until the respondent authority adjudicates the matter. This will be after passing the order afresh as directed by the Court.

The Court permitted the petitioner to inspect records of Gram Panchayat. This will help him in submitting his explanation. Furthermore, the presence of the District Panchayat Officer will be mandatory during the inspection.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -