THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14245 OF 2010 Dated: 07.10.2010 Between: Sathi Chiranjeevi Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 14245 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be the member of the Works Committee of the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat. It is stated that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 1.2.2010 accorded administrative sanction for the work - Completion of incomplete Gowda Community Hall at Gowda Street in Pasalapudi. Pursuant thereto, the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 3.2.2010 to entrust the said work to the petitioner on nomination basis at estimated rates. The technical sanction was also accorded on 22.3.2010 and vide proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 22.3.2010 the work was entrusted to the petitioner. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into on 25.2.2010 and the petitioner had completed the work by the end of March, 2010. While the petitioner’s request for payment of the bills for the work executed by him were pending, the petitioner came to know that the work entrusted to the petitioner was cancelled vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 5.3.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 5.3.2010 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the bills for the work executed by him. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the cancellation proceedings dated 5.3.2010 were passed as the 2nd respondent was under an impression that the work in question was not yet grounded. Subsequently a factual report was obtained from the 3rd respondent which revealed that the work was already grounded and the measurements were recorded by the 4th respondent in the M-Book and even the bills for payment of Rs.3,09,171/- to the petitioner were passed by the 3rd respondent. In the circumstances, the bills are being processed by the 2nd respondent for payment to the petitioner. In the light of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the payments would be made to the petitioner for the work executed by him, no further enquiry is necessary and accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________ Date: 07.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd