THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.3105 OF 2003 Between: Gangivalasa Grampanchhayat rep. by its Sarpanch, Gangutla Appalanarasamma, W/o.Appanna, aged about 40 years, Gangivalasa, Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District. … Petitioner And The Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Polaki, Srikakulam District, and others. … Respondents Order: Petitioner questions the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing proceedings dated 23- 01-2003 entrusting the work of construction of Bus Shelter at Gangivalasa Junction to Respondent No.4, and entrusting the work of laying of road to Respondent No.5, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.196/2001. 2. Petitioner herein is the Sarpanch, Gangivalasa Grampanchayat, Srikakulam District. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to create useful community assets that have potential for generating sustained and gainful employment, the Government of India envisaged a programme called SGRY Programme and under the said programme, Grampanchayats have to prepare and sanction plans for generation of employment in rural areas. It is stated that the District Collector, the Chief Executive Officer and the Zilla Parishad are primarily responsible for implementation of the said scheme. It is further stated that Respondent No.1, namely the Mandal Development Officer, issued proceedings dated 23-01-2002 stating that the Chief Executive Officer, Respondent No.2 herein, has sanctioned Rs.90,000/- for undertaking the construction work of Bus Shelter at Gangivalasa Junction under 30% NGR Scheme for the year 2002-03 and entrusted the said work to Respondent No.4, and directed to complete the work. Similarly, by the proceedings dated 23-01- 2002, Respondent No.1 handed over the work of laying the road to respondent No.5. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the works relating to construction of Bus Shelter and laying of road, was neither referred to the petitioner Grampanchayat, nor the petitioner had passed any resolutions proposing to entrust the said works to Respondent Nos.4 and 5, and as such, the proceedings issued by Respondent No.1 handing over the works in question to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 without referring to the petitioner, is illegal, unauthorized and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India. 4. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit stating that the School Education Committee Gangivalasa, has resolved to take up the work relating to construction of Bus Shelter at Road Point, Gangivalasa. Similarly, Sri Neelaveni Swayam Shakthi Sangam, Self-help Group, Gangivalasa, has resolved to take up the work of providing CC road and the said work was allotted to them as per SGRY guidelines issued by the Government in Memo No.5134, dated 24-09-2002, General Administration (SCE) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and the allegation of the petitioner that the work was allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in violation of the guidelines mentioned above, cannot be accepted. It is stated that 1875 man days will be created if the work is taken up and completed and 1.875 M. Tonnes of Rice would be distributed to the labourers engaged in the said work. It is mainly contended that the work was sanctioned as per the SGRY guidelines and to provide additional wage employment in the village, besides creating infrastructure development. 5. When it is the specific case of the official respondents, as seen from the counter affidavit, that the works allotted to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are strictly in accordance with the SGRY guidelines, issued by the Government and the orders of the Supreme Court of India, I see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned allotment, and more so when by reason of the impugned allotment, additional wage employment and infrastructure is created in the Gram Panchayat. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J September 5, 2005 MRR