HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 10134 of 2009 DATED: 11.10.2009 Between: Bheemavarapu Siva Rama Krishna Reddy And five others ..... PETITIONERs AND The District Collector The Divisional Engineer, Panchayat Raj The Asst. Engineer .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- The petitioners state that under “Pradhanamantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY)”, the Government proposed to provide connectivity to eligible unconnected habitations in rural areas, by way of an All Weather Road (with necessary culverts and cross-drainage structures, operable throughout the year). While so, the petitioners state that the contractors to whom the work of laying the roads is allotted, are laying the road in deviation of the sanctioned plan and are not following the standards prescribed, and are using sub-standard material. Therefore, the petitioners made representation dated 04.05.2009 to the respondents requesting them to prevent the contractors from laying the link roads as they are not maintaining the standards prescribed for laying the roads. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents have neither passed any orders on their representation nor prevented the contractors from laying the road. Hence, they seek appropriate directions to the respondents. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the work relating to laying of road from 20/6 of Machilipatnam, Vijayawada Road to Prodduturu village was sanctioned on 02.09.2008 under Pradhan Mantri Gramina Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) vide package No. AP 0910 for an amount of Rs.84.69 lakhs and the same was entrusted to M/s. V.S. Engineering, Hyderabad, by following tender procedure, and an agreement dated 13.02.2009 was entered into with the said contractor and the time for completing the work is fixed as 12.02.2010. The contractor started executing the work, and the same is under progress. While so, some additional works were added to the contract. The work is being periodically inspected by all the Department officials. He denied the contention of the petitioner that the contractor is laying the road using substandard material, and submitted that the quality of work has been inspected by Sri P.K. Kar, National Quality Monitor, an official of National Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA), Government of India Undertaking, who has been entrusted with the job of inspecting the quality of works sanctioned under PMGSY. He further contended and the said official inspected the site on 17.6.2009, and after thorough inspection, gave a report certifying the work as Grade “S” (Satisfactory). He further contended that the contractor has displayed the Board at the starting point of the work and the road length is only 2.65 kms which is between Machilipatnam - Vijayawada Road and Prodduturu village only and at the end of the road, there is a canal called Bandar canal which has got a foot-over bridge on it. He further submitted that the road in question is not a link road, as contended by the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents and perused the material produced by the respondents, including the inspection report. A perusal of the averments made by respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit would disclose that the laying of road work entrusted to the contractors under PMRGY, is being periodically inspected by one Sri P.K. Kar, National Quality Monitor, who is an official of National Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA), Government of India. The said official, inspected the quality of the work in question on 17.6.2009, and the report submitted by him is filed along with the counter affidavit. A perusal of the report relating to the work in question, would disclose that the work of laying of roads by the contractor is under progress, and that the work is being executed by the contractor as per the guidelines and norms laid down under PMGSY. The report discloses that the officer, having inspected the quality of the material used in the work and also the quality of work, graded the work in question as “S”, which means “Satisfactory”. Thus, from the averments made in the counter as well as the report of the National Quality Monitor, it is clear that the quality of the material as well as the quality of the work in question is being monitored regularly, and the work so far executed by the contractor was found to be satisfactory. The averments made in the counter, are not disputed by the petitioners. That being so, it cannot be said that the material used by the contractor in laying the road is of inferior quality, and that the respondents in spite of complaints, are not inspecting the work nor taking any action thereon. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 11.10.2009 bcj