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

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

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

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -