THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7943 OF 2010 DATED AUGUST, 2010 BETWEEN Komarapu Venkata Rao And Others. … Petitioners And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented its Prl. Secertary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.7943 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners, Ward Members of Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayat, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District, challenge the action of the State and its authorities in permitting the Sarpanch of Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayat, respondent 5, to execute the work viz. ‘laying of a gravel road from S.C. Graveyard to the land owned by Nandina Venkatrao’ in his personal capacity without resolution by the Gram Panchayat on the ground that the same is violative of the guidelines framed in G.O.Ms.No.227, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, dated 13.04.1995. This work was allotted under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 2005’) to the Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayat, though majority of the Members of the Gram Panchayat, including the petitioners, rejected the resolution in respect of this work. In spite of the same, respondent 5 is said to be proceeding with the execution of the work on his own volition without the approval of the Gram Panchayat. Allegations are made by the petitioners against respondent 5 and also the Panchayat Secretary. The grievance of the petitioners is that in such a scenario if this work is executed by respondent 5, he would misappropriate the funds. The authorities, according to the petitioners, turned a deaf ear to their entreaties and no enquiry was conducted in the matter, though steps were initiated in this regard. It is further stated that the guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.227 dated 13.04.1995 with regard to proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and Committees thereof have not been followed. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, the District Panchayat Officer, Eluru, respondent 3, admitted that majority of the Members of the Gram Panchayat had rejected the resolution pertaining to the subject work in the meeting held on 24.02.2010. With regard to the allegations made against respondent 5 and the Panchayat Secretary, it is stated that the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kovvur, respondent 4, conducted an enquiry in the matter and submitted his report to respondent 3 recommending suspension of the Panchayat Secretary and respondent 5. It is stated that necessary action was initiated upon this report. Respondent 3 however stated that the issue of executing of works sanctioned under the Act of 2005 is distinct and separate from the alleged irregularities levelled against respondent 5 and the action taken thereon. He also pointed out that in the meeting held on 24.02.2010, a Committee was appointed for execution of the works sanctioned under the Act of 2005 through Resolution No.60. This Committee consisted of the Sarpanch, respondent 5, as the Chairman; two Ward Members, petitioners 2 and 5; a MPTC Member and the Panchayat Secretary. It is stated that the participation of respondent 5 in the Committee was accepted by the Gram Panchayat, including the petitioners herein, but only the subject work was rejected by them. It is further stated that under Resolution No.6 dated 20.08.2009, the Grama Sabha of Lakshmipuram recommended certain works to the Zilla Parishad and Mandal Parishad and out of these works, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Devarapalli, issued administrative sanction for the work of formation of a gravel road from S.C. Burial Ground to Nandina Venkata Rao fields under proceedings dated 06.01.2010. It is therefore contended that the allegation that the State and its authorities permitted respondent 5 to undertake the work unilaterally is incorrect as the Gram Panchayat itself approved his Chairmanship of the Committee under Resolution No.60 passed on 24.02.2010 and the work was sanctioned by the Mandal Parishad. The work is said to have been grounded through the Committee. Respondent 3 denied that no enquiry was conducted pursuant to the complaints made against respondent 5. He further stated that no complaints were received with regard to the execution of the subject work and that 75% of the work has already been completed. Section 13 of the Act of 2005 provides that the Panchayats at the district, intermediate and villages shall be the principal authorities for planning and implementing the schemes made thereunder. Thus, not only the Gram Panchayats at the village level but also the Mandal Parishads at the intermediate level have a role to play in the process of identification and implementation of works formulated through the schemes framed under the Act of 2005. Therefore, notwithstanding the rejection of the subject work by the Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayat, it was within the power of the Mandal Parishad, Devarapalli to sanction the subject work. However, the implementation of the work would necessarily have to be through the Committee constituted by the Lakshmipuram Gram Panchayat at its meeting held on 24.02.2010. The Sarpanch, respondent 5, cannot execute the work independently, to the exclusion of the other members of the Committee. Whatever be the wisdom of entrusting the Chairmanship of the Committee to the Sarpanch, when there were allegations against him, the fact remains that the Gram Panchayat, including the petitioners herein, passed the resolution to this effect. Viewed thus, there is no illegality in the identification and execution of the subject work. The execution must, of course, be with the active participation of all the members of the Committee, including petitioners 2 and 5 herein. The Committee would be obligated to render a true and proper account in respect of the subject work to the Gram Panchayat and the authorities. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _________ AUGUST, 2010 VGSR/PGS