THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR DATED: 19-05-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 375 OF 2010 Between: B. Madhavaiah ..... APPELLANT AND The Govt., of A.P, rep., by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Progs.III) Department and five others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.375 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Sri B.Seshasayana Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been directed against the order dated 16- 04-2010 passed in Writ Petition No.6454 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant assailing letter dated 12-03-2010. The appellant is the Sarpanch of M.Bandameedapalli Village of Raptadu Mandal, Anantapur District. He filed the writ petition assailing the communication dated 12-03-2010 issued by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Dharmavaram Division at Anantapur authorising the Village Secretary, M.Bandameedapalli to commence four works under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). The appellant also sought for consequential direction to the respondents to withdraw the impugned letter and entrust NREGS works to him. It appears that a meeting was held for entrustment of the NREGS works on 08-03-2010 at 10.00 AM. Of the 12, six ward members were present. None of them supported the appellant and thereupon the appellant walked out of the meeting. The Upa Sarpanch conducted the meeting and all the six members resolved to entrust NREGS works to G.Balaramudu, the sixth respondent herein. Thereafter, the appellant tampered the proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material brought on record. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Upa Sarpanch is not the competent person to preside over the meeting with regard to entrustment of NREGS works. The same contention was advanced before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge after thorough consideration of the material brought on record came to the, prima facie, conclusion that the appellant tampered the first resolution. For better appreciation, we refer the relevant portion of the order which reads as under: “This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for respondent No.6 and Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. This Court also perused the documents filed by the petitioner, and those filed by respondent No.6. The notice issued by respondent No.5 on 27.02.2010 calling the presence of the members in the meeting as well as the first and second resolutions have been perused. The Xerox copy of the first resolution shows that after the same was recorded in the relevant book, the petitioner endorsed that he is cancelling the said meeting meaning that he is cancelling the resolution. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is convinced that the second resolution was passed by supporters of the petitioner without there being valid cancellation of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, in the eye of law there is no valid resolution nominating the petitioner as Convenor for execution of NREGS works. As the enquiry is pending before the Divisional Panchayat Officer (as ordered by DPO) regarding the allegation that the petitioner forcibly took away the relevant records from the house of respondent No.5 it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion on the same. This order shall not be construed as precluding or stopping such enquiry by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the first resolution it is always open to him to make a representation to the Government under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act for cancellation of the same. Insofar as the present case is concerned, this Court is convinced that the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned “work commencement order” is in accordance with the first resolution which has not been validly cancelled.” It is evident from the record that the first meeting was conducted on 08.03.2010 at 11.00 A.M. under the chairmanship of Upa-Sarpanch and all the members present resolved to entrust the NREGS works to the 6th respondent. The learned Single Judge perused the documents placed on record and came to the conclusion that the second resolution was passed by the supporters of the appellant without there being valid cancellation of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Since there is a prima facie case of the appellant tampering the resolution, the learned single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do not see any valid ground to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J 19-05-2010 ks