IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1204 of 2008 Between: Between: People Book Centre repby its Proprietor, Mr. Pataneni Krishna S/o narayana Murthy, r/o Tanuk, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Panchayat Officer West Godavari District at Eluru 2 The Panchayat Extension Officer, (PR&RD), undrajavaram mandal, West Godavari District. 3 The Sarpanch Chilakapadu GramPanchayat West Godavari District. 4 The Sub Treasury Officer, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 5 The Divisional Panchayat Officer Kovvuru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in not making payment for the bill amount of Rs.44,515/- towards supply of electrical goods in spite of the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer, the 1st Respondent herein in ROc.No. 8089/2007()Pts) dated 23- 11-2007 is arbitrary, illegal and unjust and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VENKATADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1204 of 2008 O R D E R Questioning the action of respondents 2 to 5 in not making payment of the bill amount of Rs.44,515/- towards supply of electrical goods in spite of the order of 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The petitioner is a dealer in electrical goods like tube-lights, S.V.Lamps, M.V.Lamps, fixtures and other allied electrical goods and also authorised dealer for supply of electrical goods to several Gram Panchayats. The 3rd respondent - Gram Panchayat passed a resolution to purchase electrical goods from the authorised dealer, and in that process, the tender submitted by the petitioner has been approved. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied the electrical goods worth Rs.44,515/- vide Bills No.74 and 75, dated 06.06.2001 to the 3rd respondent - Gram Panchayat. As per the practice in vogue, the amounts have to be paid within two months from the date of supply of the electrical goods. However, the said amount was not paid to the petitioner so far. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations dated 18.11.2002, 15.02.2003 and 18.12.2004 to the 1st respondent and pursuant to the representations, the 1st respondent directed the other respondents to make payment within seven days, but no action has been taken. The petitioner had given another representation to the respondents in the year 2005 and the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Roc.No.8089/2007 (Pts), dated 23.11.2007 directed the 3rd respondent to make payment and report compliance. Despite the same, the said amount was not paid to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. While issuing rule nisi on 25.01.2008, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat to produce the records. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned Standing Counsel seeks time for production of records. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. The goods were supplied as early as in the year 2001 and though the 1st respondent directed the Gram Panchayat to verify the records and make payments, no action is taken so far. If really the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay the bill amount, it could have addressed a letter to the 1st respondent stating that the amount was paid by giving the particulars of payment and there are no dues to the petitioner. Instead of doing so, 3rd respondent made the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent every year right from 2001 to 2007. The conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent in not making the payment in spite of the direction given by 1st respondent is deprecated. All these circumstances clearly lead to an inference that the 3rd respondent did not pay the bill amount so far. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the Gram Panchayat-3rd respondent, represented by the Sarpanch or the Panchayat Extension Officer under whose jurisdiction the Chilakapadu Gram Panchayat is situated, to make the said payment with interest at 9% per annum, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------- GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 12th MARCH, 2008 Note: Issue copy in two days. (B/O)PGS To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.1204 of 2008 12th MARCH, 2008