Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 66 (AP)

Kamatham Sunil Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-08

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in not taken any steps to make an enquiry with regard to malpractice, illegal action of the Grama Panchayath Board and Panchayath Secretary in relating to conducting the public auction for fishery rights to the Peddamma Cheruvu and also action of the respondent in not taking action against the Gram Panchayath board and concerned authorities for not conducting meeting of Grama panchayath board since 01.07.2021 to 27.10.2021 and also not considering and disposed off the representations dated 27.10.2021, 27.12.2021 and 29.12.2021 made by the petitioners and others with regard to the above subject matters is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Panchayath raj act and rules made there under and also violation of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India." 2. The Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not taking any steps to make an enquiry with regard to the malpractice, illegal action of the Grama Panchayath Board and Panchayath Secretary in relating to conducting the public auction for fishery rights to Peddamma Cheruvu and also not taking action against the Gram Panchayath Board and concerned authorities for not conducting meeting of Grama Panchayat Board since 01.07.2021 to 27.10.2021 and also not considering representations dated 27.10.2021, 27.12.2021 and 29.12.2021 made by the petitioners with regard to the above subject matters. 3. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it appears that the respondents confirmed the leasehold rights of the fishing rights of Peddamma Cheruvu in favour of third parties without conducting any auction. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. The second contention that is raised is that the meeting of Grama Panchayat Board was held on 30.03.2021 as first meeting after taking the charge by the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch and thereafter on 30.06.2021, the second meeting was held and thereafter there is no meeting was held from 01.07.2021 to 27.10.2021, which is approximately 118 days. 5. 4. The second contention that is raised is that the meeting of Grama Panchayat Board was held on 30.03.2021 as first meeting after taking the charge by the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch and thereafter on 30.06.2021, the second meeting was held and thereafter there is no meeting was held from 01.07.2021 to 27.10.2021, which is approximately 118 days. 5. Under Section 31 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, if no meeting of the Gram Panchayat is held within a period of ninety days from the last meeting, the Panchayat Secretary, with the approval of, or on the direction of the Sarpanch, he shall be liable for disciplinary action under the relevant rules. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the last meeting was held on 30.06.2021 and, thereafter, no meeting was held from 01.07.2021 and, hence, the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch and the Executive Authorities are liable for the disciplinary action. 7. The 4th respondent-District Panchayat Officer filed counter and stated that the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch are affected with Covid-19 disease, as such, they are unable to conduct meeting within time and enquiry was conducted and Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch have stated that the Executive Officer who is the person who has to take action to conduct the meeting within 90 days has no authority to take action, if at all, it is against the Executive Authority. 8. The 8th respondent-Panchayat Secretary filed counter and stated that after gradual decrease of the Covid-19 cases, the Gram Panchayat has convened meetings on 02.11.2021, 20.12.2021, 04.01.2022, 30.03.2022 and 28.06.2022. It is further stated that in pursuance thereof, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Gudur issued proceedings dated 21.12.2021 under which the upset price was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- for the period from 21.12.2021 to 30.06.2022 and accordingly, paper publication was issued on 25.12.2021 informing the general public to participate in the auction i.e., to be held on 28.12.2021. Further, public notice was also issued on 24.12.2021 at the conspicuous places of the Gram Panchayat and also given wide publicity by beat of Tom-Tom on 27.12.2021 and thereafter, auction was conducted on 28.12.2021 and one Sri Mellakanti Veeraswamy stood as highest bidder for an amount of Rs.1,44,000/- and the said action was held in the presence of Sarpanch and MPP along with village elders and the said factum of conducting auction was also published in newspapers on 29.12.2021. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. The foremost contention of the petitioner’s counsel is based on section 31 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994. The court feels it is appropriate to extract section 31 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994. 10. Functions of Executive Authority: (1) The Panchayat Secretary, with the approval of, or on the direction of the Sarpanch, convene the meetings of the Gram Panchayat so that at least one meeting of the Gram Panchayat is held every month and if he 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 he shall be liable to disciplinary action under the relevant rules: Provided that where the Sarpanch fails to give his approval for convening the meeting so as to hold a meeting within the period of ninety days aforesaid, the Panchayat Secretary shall himself convene the meeting in the manner prescribed.] [Substituted by Section 10 of Act No. 22 of 2002.] (2) The Executive Authority shall ordinarily attend to the meetings of the Gram Panchayat or of any committee thereof and shall be entitled to take part in the discussions thereat, but he shall not be entitled to vote or to move any resolution. 11. The Section that indicates that a meeting if no meeting is conducted with a period of ninety days from the last meeting liable disciplinary action under the relevant rules. Against whoever may be for the present case. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC 117 held that if the period of limitation that has expired during the period of lockdown on account of Covid-19 pandemic for the purpose of computation of period of limitation it is directed the period from 15.03.2021 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed in any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings (suit/application/other proceedings). The delay subsequent thereto, has to be sufficiently explained by giving cogent reasons for the Court to exercise its discretion to condone the delay. 13. The meeting was not held as per sec 31 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, because of the Covid Pandemic 2019. The delay subsequent thereto, has to be sufficiently explained by giving cogent reasons for the Court to exercise its discretion to condone the delay. 13. The meeting was not held as per sec 31 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, because of the Covid Pandemic 2019. The meeting was held on 30.06.2021 and the next meeting was held on 27.10.2021 and the meeting was held after 118 days, which is more than 90 days. The Apex Court clearly spelled out in the above mentioned case that the limitation period shall stand excluded for all general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. On the touchstone of the aforementioned judgment, if the period is excluded there is no delay in conducting the meeting. 14. It is an admitted fact that during the period from 2020 to 2021, there is a pandemic Covid-19 disease. The respondents are unable to conduct meeting under Section 31 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, as both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch were affected with Covid-19 disease. A genuine cause was mentioned in the counter for not conducting the meeting. Hence, the writ petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this Writ Petition, however, this Court is inclined to close the Writ Petition without dismissing. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.