THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 16937 of 2008 Oral order: Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and their subordinates in taking action against the illegal constructions being made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in the land in Sy. No. 381/1 bearing Door No. 6-22 in Arthamuru village, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by encroaching the public road are making constructions, and it is his grievance that though he lodged complaints with respondent Nos. 1 to 4 requesting them to take action against the illegal constructions be made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, no action thereon had been taken. Hence, he seeks appropriate directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to take action against the illegal constructions being made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 took notice, but did not file any counter. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that she has no instructions in the matter. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 having received the notice, entered their appearance and filed counter stating that the official respondents are already seized of the matter and that the Divisional Panchayt Officer, Rajahmundry, has addressed letter vide Rc. No. 1044/2008-B, dated 28.06.2008 to the 3rd respondent, and an urgent Memo vide Rc. No.1044/08-B, dated 28.06.2008 is also issued by the Divisional Panchayat Officer to the Panchayat Secretary as well as to them and others, and since the mater is already seized of by the official respondents, it is submitted that no interference is called for in the matter. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayt Raj for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Since the matter is already seized of by the 2nd respondent, namely the District Panchayt Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, who is said to have notice to unofficial respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and who in response thereto, are said to have submitted their explanation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No. 2 shall consider the explanation submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the show cause notice, issued based on the complaint received from the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 2nd June, 2009 KSR