THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CONTEMPT CASE No.350 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 23.07.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P. No.18926 of 2009 in W.P. No. 14433 of 2009, which reads as under: “The petitioners claim to be the Sarpanchs of various Gram Panchayats situated in Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District. It is their grievance that respondents 2 to 4 are entrusting the works under ‘Indiramma Cheruvu Programme’ straight away to respondent No.5 for execution, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 31.01.2007, 137 dated 10.04.2007, 409 dated 31.08.2007 and 571 dated 26.12.2007. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the works under ‘Indiramma Cheruvu Programme’ are earmarked for the Gram Panchayats, they are being allotted to respondent No.5. The matter has been adjourned twice for getting instructions. But, no instructions have been reported. Under the circumstances, respondents 2 to 4 are directed to follow the G.Os. mentioned above, in entrusting the works under ‘Indiramma Cheruvu Programme’.” The 1st respondent- Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Dattirajeru Mandal, Vijayanagaram District, filed detailed counter- affidavit, stating that, even prior to filing of the writ petition, the works under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme were entrusted to the executing agencies as per the norms and guidelines of the Government and almost all the works have been executed. It is further stated that, so far as Datti Gram Panchayat is concerned, initially work was entrusted to the Sarpanch as per the guidelines, but however, the Sarpanch, after completion of 50% of work, stopped the execution of work and thus the remaining 50% of work was entrusted to Mandal Engineering Officer as provided under G.O.Ms.No.137 and the same was completed. It is categorically stated that there is no deviation of the guidelines and the Government Orders in entrusting the works to the executing agencies. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent, no further orders need be passed in this contempt case. The contempt case is, accordingly, closed. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 6th July, 2010 IBL