IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11095 of 2008 Between: Kommu Nageswara Rao S/o.Tirapallu G.P R/o.Petluru(V) Kondepi(M) Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Prakasam District Ongole 2 Project Director D.W.M.A Office Ongole Prakasam District 3 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Kondepi(M) Prakasam District 4 The Assistant Engineer Panchayat Raj Kondepi(M) Prakasam District 5 Sarpanch G.P Petluru Kondepi(M) Prakasam District 6 The Panchayat Secretary G.P Petluru,Kondepi (M) Prakasam 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the inaction of the respondent No.6 in not conducting the Grampanchayat Committee meeting for passing resolution in respect of the works allotted by the respondent No.1 vide order dt.29-04-2008 which is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and without authority of law and direct the respondents to implement the G.O.Ms.No.37 dt.18-02-2005. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is an Upa Sarpanch of Petluru village, Kondepi Mandal, Prakasam District. The District Collector, the 1st respondent herein, through his proceedings dated 29.4.2008, sanctioned certain works. The petitioner states that respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 have entrusted works to persons of their choice without following the prescribed procedure. He claims to have got issued a notice on 25.4.2008, but no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The Government prescribed the procedure to be followed in the matter of entrustment of works sanctioned under different schemes. The question as to whether respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 have violated the prescribed procedure in the matter of entrustment of the works sanctioned through proceedings dated 29.4.2008 needs to be examined by the 1st respondent since a notice in this regard was already got issued by the petitioner. Further, the delay in this regard would lead to uncertainties as well as wastage of public funds. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take necessary steps in response to the notice dated 25.4.2008 got issued by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________ 29.05.2008 Note: Furnish copy in three days. B/o bcj