IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2684 of 2009 Between: Smt Kuna Prameela. ..... PETITIONER AND Government of A.P., represented by its Special Chief Secretary, Planning (VI) Department, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2684 of 2009 ORDER: This Court issued rule nisi on 13.02.2009 and made the following interim order in W.P.M.P.No.3451 of 2009; “This is the second instance, which this Court has come across, whereunder the Minister In-charge of Srikakulam District has surrendered his powers conferred under G.O.Ms.No.13, Planning Department, dated 13.06.2008. Clause 4 of the G.O. specifically directs that the In-charge Minister of the District alone shall exercise the choice to recommend/sanction the works. In this case, he has surrendered all his powers to another Minister, in total deviation from the G.O. The petitioner complains that the works were allotted by the Minister, who was so authorized indiscriminately without ensuring the necessity or the guidelines under Clause 4 of the G.O. There shall be interim stay as prayed for. It is, however, directed that this order does not preclude the District Collector and the District In-charge Minister to allocate the works, as per the guidelines contained under G.O.Ms.No.13”. 2. Sri M. Viswanadham, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, had taken this Court to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition to be allowed. 3. Per contra, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development would maintain that the guidelines specified in G.O.Ms.No.13, Planning Department, dated 13.06.2008, in fact, had been followed. Hence, inasmuch as the reliefs had been prayed for by the writ petitioner had already been complied with, no orders need be passed and the writ petition would be dismissed. 4. Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 40, would maintain that the works already had been completed, but unfortunately, because of the interim orders passed by this Court, the bills are not being finalized. 5. Heard the learned counsel. 6. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus with the following prayer; “to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.105/08/DPM/cpo-skl/Plg.IV, dated .12.2008 issued by the 1st respondent in respect of villages covered under Ponduru Mandal Praja Parisad, Srikakulam District, by conducting Grama Sabha for the purpose of executing the works as per G.O.Ms.No.13 Planning (VI) Department dated 13.06.2008 and no disposing of the reprsentation dated 02.01.2009 as being arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to carry out the works in respect of the said villages till identification of the areas inhabited by SCs and STs in the villages covered under Ponduru Mandal Praja Parishad, Srikakulam District as per the said G.O”. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a President of Mandal Praja Parishad of Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District and thus, he is vitally interested in the matter of welfare of the villages covered under the said Mandal. The first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 13.06.2008 whereby and whereunder, it had sanctioned an amount of Rs.90.00 lakhs for each Rural Mandal of the entire State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of integrated development of internal C.C. roads and C.C. drainages/underground drainage with PVC pipes in the villages of all Rural Mandals of the State. In the said G.O., guidelines had been issued for effective implementation. In paragraph 4 of the said G.O, it is stated that In-charge Minister of the District alone shall exercise a choice to recommend/sanction works for taking up renovation/restoration/construction/laying of internal C.C. roads and C.C. drainages/underground drainage with PVC pipes in the villages and the District Collector is empowered to accord administrative sanctions for the works recommended by the District In-charge Minister. In paragraph 5 of the said G.O., it is stated that the Collector, in turn, will get these sanctioned works implemented by the Panchayat Raj Department in a transparent and expeditious manner by following the established procedures of the Government and the guidelines issued by this department from time to time and at least 16.2% and 6.6% of the total funds shall be utilized for the areas inhabited on an overall basis. In paragraph 18 of the said G.O., it is stated that the assigned executing agencies shall follow all prescribed procedures and guidelines and provision of various Codes/Manuals and execute the works as is now being done in respect of normal works of PR Department. 8. It is stated that in furtherance to the said G.O., the second respondent had issued proceedings dated 17.12.2008 in respect of Ponduru Rural Mandal, whereby a sum of Rs.89 lakhs was sanctioned. But, nowhere in the said proceedings, the second respondent had earmarked the areas for SCs and STs inhabited in any of the villages as specified in the said G.O. Even for such identification, Grama Sabha had to be conducted and in that Sabha, the areas, which have to be developed had to be decided. In the absence of conduction of Grama Sabha and non- identification of the areas would lead to discrimination and disputes among the villagers. 9. It is stated that it is the duty of the respondents to follow the guidelines issued in the above said G.O., especially, with regard to identification and expenditure of funds, at least to an extent of 16.2% and 6.6% for the areas inhabited by scheduled castes and scheduled tribes respectively. Unless such areas are identified for development, the said percentage cannot be expended for the purpose. 10. It is further stated that in the impugned proceedings it can be seen that no such identification of the areas to be developed had been spelt out and only allotment of amounts are made, by which, there is no clarity and would lead to discrimination and favoritism. It is the duty of respondents 2 to 4 to follow the guidelines envisaged in the said G.O. in its letter and spirit. It is stated that the petitioners made a representation, dated 02.01.2009, to the first respondent in this regard, but no action had been taken thereon. In this writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not following the guidelines, especially, paragraph No.5 of the said G.O., as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. It is also stated that by virtue of the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, the very intention of the Governmental order is sought to be defeated. It is stated that the works had not yet commenced though amounts had been sanctioned. If interim orders directing the respondents to forthwith conduct Grama Sabhas to identify the areas to be developed in the teeth of the G.O. are not issued, the works would be executed as per their whims and fancies depriving the persons, whose areas to be identified and benefited by the scheme and till then not to proceed with the works pursuant to the impugned proceedings. 12. It is stated that in paragraph 12 of the proceedings of the second respondent, a clause had been incorporated unilaterally stating that if works once recommended and sanctioned under the scheme will not be cancelled, if the execution of the work had already commenced. Such a clause not at all exists in the G.O. Be that as it may, no work under this scheme had been commenced in Ponduru Mandal till date. It is stated that on any date the work may commence, in which event, the second respondent may take advantage of this clause and will not cancel the work even though it is contrary to the guidelines of the G.O. Hence, the petitioners crave leave of this Court to interfere in this matter and pass interim orders as prayed for as otherwise the guidelines issued in the G.O. will become infructuous and deprive the rights accrued to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the said G.O. 13. In the circumstances stated above, the petitioners had no efficacious alternative remedy, except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition. 14. The third respondent filed counter-affidavit in detail along with an application to vacate the interim order. The implead applicants also filed vacate application along with counter-affidavit. 15. In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the State Government had decided to launch a new plan scheme known as “Integrated Development of Internal C.C.Roads and C.C.Drains/Underground Drainage with PVC pipes in the villages of all rural Mandals in the State (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). Accordingly, G.O.Ms.No.13 Planning (IV) Department, dated 13.06.2008 was issued formulating the scheme and framing the guidelines as well, for the purpose of its implementation. It is a fact that the hygienic conditions in the Rural area are rudimentary and require to be improved. Majority of the villages do not have infrastructure facilities, like proper internal roads and proper drainage systems, and it is the long felt need of the Rural areas. The Government had decided to address the said problem on such a large scale. It is for the first time such huge funds are being made available for rural sector in the State. Consequently, the Scheme had been conceptualized and guidelines are issued. These guidelines specifically provide for implementation of the scheme by the Panchayat Raj Department in a transparent and expeditious manner by following established procedures of the Government/guidelines issued by the Department from time to time. The guidelines further provide for entrustment of the works following the Rules in vogue in Panchayat Raj Department. No new guidelines issued in the matter of entrustment of execution of works are issued. Hence, the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.13 Planning (VI) Department dated 13.06.2008 take care of entrustment of works contemplated under the Scheme in a transparent and expeditious manner. The works will be executed as per the circulars issued for technical guidance by the Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj and Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj department, from time to time. 16. It is stated that the contention of the petitioners that paragraph 4 of the said G.O. gives absolute discretion to In-charge Minister of the District alone to exercise a choice to recommend/sanction of works for taking up renovation/restoration/construction/laying (development) of the internal CC roads and CC drainages, is impermissible. It is stated that exercising choice by an In-charge Minister of District is not a new phenomenon and is in vogue under various Schemes in the State. As a part of administrative convenience and effective supervision/implementation of the policies/schemes of the Government, the State Government had been keeping various Ministers as In-charge of the Districts in the State since decades. This enables the State Government to effectively supervise, coordinate and review the progress of the works on ground. As the State Government felt there was no proper coordination while implementing various schemes in the Districts, a Cabinet Minister was given responsibility of overseeing all these activities in public interest. In fact, the In-charge Minister is the Chairman for the District Review Committee, where he/she chairs the meeting, which reviews all the developmental activities and schedule operating in the District. As stated above, the Minister In- charge reviews the programmes with the officials and non- officials, attend to programmes at different stages and visits the villages in the District, receives representations and petitions from the public and peoples representatives. The In-charge Minister also advises different Departments in the District for better coordination, monitors the progress of the implementation of Schemes, which expedites the progress of works, as bottlenecks in the matter of implementation receive the attention of a High Functionary in the State. In this process, keeping in view the priorities of the Government, nature of works taken up under different Schemes, availability of financial resources under different Schemes and need of the people and area, he/she suggests to the District Administration to issue sanction of works under different Schemes, so as to distribute the development works equitably. This practice is in vogue in this State for several decades. Hence, as per the existing practice and procedure, the In-charge Minister is given the discretion to exercise his choice to recommend and sanction the works to the needy villages and the District Collector is authorized to accord administrative sanction for the works recommended by the District In-charge Minister. Such recommendations/sanctions were given by the In-charge Minister earlier also under the Assembly Constituency Development Programme, Food for Works Scheme, etc., Similar binding choice/discretion to recommend and sanction works is available to the Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly under the Government of India Scheme, namely the Member of Parliament Local Area Development of Scheme (MPLADS) and the Assembly Constituency Development Programme (ACDP) respectively since the year 1993-1994. Therefore, it is stated that the In-charge Minister had been playing an important role in the Districts for effective implementation of the government programmes. As per G.O.Ms.No.13, the role of the In- charge Minister is up to the stage of exercise of choice to recommend/sanction works only. After recommending the choice of the works, there are further stages of issuing administrative sanction, which is done by the District Collector, preparation and approval of technical sanctions, which is done by the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department Officials at different levels right from the Deputy Executive Engineer and up to the level of the Chief Engineer, depending upon the estimated value of the work. Then, it comes the stage of entrustment of work by the executing agency i.e., Panchayat Raj Engineering Department officials as per the prescribed guidelines. Hence, it is stated that the In-charge Minister had no discretion to accord administrative sanction or entrustment of works to any individual. Hence, the apprehension that keeping the Cabinet Minister in-charge of allotment work would result in political favoritism and congress workers would be entrusted with the works is unfounded and baseless and is a political allegation without regard to ground realities. It is stated that the In-charge Minister, being the Minister in the Council of Ministers, is not only accountable to the Government, but also to the Legislative Assembly and his participation in developmental activities cannot be viewed in a partisan manner and he is not expected to and will not act in such manner. 17. It is stated that the second respondent had issued proceedings vide Rc.No.105/08/DPM/cpo-skl/Plg-IV dated 17.12.2008 in respect of Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District according administrative sanction with an estimated cost of Rs.89.00 lakhs for the year 2008-09. It is stated that the works were entrusted to the executing agency i.e., Executive Engineer, P.R.Srikakulam and directed to prepare the estimates for the works following G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 13.06.2008. It is stated that the third respondent directed the fourth respondent to submit the nomination proposals, which were recommended by the MPDO/Gram Panchayat. In turn, the fourth respondent submitted the nomination proposals, which were recommended by the MPDO and the same was entrusted to the individuals. It is stated that the contention of the petitioners that nowhere in the said proceedings of the second respondent had earmarked the areas for SCs and STs inhabited in any of the villages as specified in the said G.O. and even for such identification, no Gram Sabha had conducted is false and baseless. In fact, the concerned MPDO who had submitted the nomination proposals will be with the concern of the Gram Panchayat. 18. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioners that the respondent had not followed the guidelines issued in the G.O. with regard to identification and expenditure of funds at least to an extent of 16.2% and 6.6% for the areas inhabited by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is baseless. In fact, when the works had been earmarked, the funds were allocated as Mandal as unit and the funds will be allocated to the Mandal wise to an extent of 16.2% and 6.6% for the Mandal wise but not for the Gram Panchayat as contended by the petitioners. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that respondents 2 to 4 had not followed the guidelines is false and baseless. In fact, the respondents followed the guidelines, recommended the proposals submitted by the MPDO and same entrusted to the individuals after proper identification of SC and ST areas. There is small habitation of Erukalapta ST area in Ponduru Mandal with a population of 180 and the respondents herein had allotted Rs.1.00 lakh for the developmental programme under the Scheme and with regard to SC area as per the G.O., Rs.15.00 lakhs had been sanctioned to the SC area. In the following Gram Panchayats, the amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs under SC category had been allotted. Sl.No. Name of the work Est. Cost: (in lakhs) 1 Construction of CC road at Thadyam village 1.00 2 Construction of CC road at Thadyam village 1.00 3 Construction of CC road at Banam village 1.00 4 Construction of CC road at Boddepalli village 1.00 5 Construction of CC road at Boddepalli village 1.00 6 Construction of CC road at Kinthali village 1.50 7 Construction of CC road at Tholapi village 2.00 8 Construction of CC road at Gorinta village 2.00 9 Construction of CC road at Gokarnapalli village 1.50 10 Construction of CC road at Atchipolavalasa village 1.00 11 Construction of CC road at Atchipolavalasa village 1.00 12 Construction of CC road at Lachayyapeta village 15.00 19. It is also stated that the contention of the petitioners that in the proceedings of the second respondent, Clause 12 had been incorporated unilaterally stating that if the works once recommended and sanctioned under the Scheme will not be cancelled, if the execution of work had already commenced. It is true that when once the work is commenced, it cannot be cancelled as the individuals, who had been entrusted would have made expenditure on the work. Thus, the specific stand taken by the petitioners is not correct. 20. In the light of the specific stand taken in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit that in fact, when the works had been earmarked, the funds were allocated as Mandal as unit and the funds will be allocated to the Mandal wise to an extent of 16.2% and 6.6% for the Mandal wise but not for the Gram Panchayat wise and further, in the light of the specific stand taken that the guidelines specified by G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 13.06.2008, in fact, had been followed, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders need be passed in the present writ petition. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ P.S.NARAYANA,J Date:14.12.2009. Note: Issue CC by three days. (Bo) sj