IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.3512 of 2008 Between: Gram Panchayat, Gogullanka, rep. by Sarpanch L.Poosarao S/o. Venkateshwararao Gogullanka, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Industry and Commerce Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 4. Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram East Godavari District. 5. Divisional Panchayat Officer, Amalapuram East Godavari District. 6. Mandal Development Officer, I.Polavaram, East Godavari District. 7. Mandal Revenue Officer, I.Polavaram, East Godavari District. 8. Gram Panchayat, Bhairavapalem, rep. by Sarpanch Bhairavapalem, East Godavari District. 9. Gram Panchayat, Guttenaveedi, rep. by Sarpanch Guttenaveedi, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not disposing Petitioner's representation submitted to the 4th respondent and copies marked to the respondent Nos. 3,5,6 and 7 requesting release of his share in the seigniorage charges collected from Reliance Industries Ltd., Gadimoga in terms of Memo No.9950/MI(2)/04-3 dt. 3.11.2005 issued by 2nd respondent and trying to release the same to 8th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently direct the respondents to release petitioner's share of 25% seigniorage charges as per our entitlement as per law immediately and grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : G.P. FOR INDUSTRIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3,4,6 and 7 : GP for REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 and 9 : Sri M. Prabhakar Rao, Standing Counsel for Mandal Parishad. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.3512 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing of its representation for release of its share in the seigniorage charges collected from Reliance Industries Limited, Gadimoga, in terms of Memo No.9950/MI(2)/04-3, dated 03.11.2005, issued by the second respondent and trying to release the same to the eighth respondent as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release petitioner’s share of 25% in the seniorage charges as per its entitlement. Heard the counsel. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. When there is a dispute between two authorities, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the Government for settlement of the dispute, as provided for under Section 273 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act”). Section 273 of the Act reads as under: “Sec.273. Adjudication of disputes between local authorities:- (1) When a dispute exists between a local authority and one or more local authorities, in regard to any matter arising under the provisions of this or any other act, and the Government are of the opinion that the local authorities concerned are unable to settle it amicably among themselves, the Government may take cognizance of the dispute; and (a) decide it themselves; or (b) refer it for enquiry and report to an arbitrator or a board of arbitrators or to a joint committee constituted for the purpose by an order of the Government.” In view of the availability of alternative remedy, this Court sees no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the first respondent under Section 273 of the Act for adjudication of the dispute, and as and when such application being filed, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 10.03.2008 sh