IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20971 of 2008 Between: A.V.V.Satyanarayana S/o. Late Sri Ande Raghava Rao R/o. K.P.Palem, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, NABARD ( PR ) Hyderabad. 3 The Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Eluru, West Godavari District. 5 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate action on the representation dt. 20.2.2008 submitted by the petitioner herein in connection with the work pertaining to Road from Duvva to Kondayapalem, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was awarded a contract for laying road from Duvva to Kondayapalem, West Godavari District, under NABARD Scheme, by the Panchayat Raj Department. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 20.02.2008, to the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Eluru, West Godavari District, the third respondent herein, with a request to allow him new S.S. rates to complete the B.T. work or to ﬁnalize the contract as per the agreement, by releasing the dues and deposits. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The contract awarded in favour of the petitioner is guided by the conditions stipulated under the relevant agreements. The question as to whether the request made by the petitioner through his representation, dated 20.02.2008, fits into clauses of the contract and the nature of relief that can be granted to the petitioner, needs to be examined by the third respondent. This Court cannot express any opinion as to the relief, which the petitioner is entitled to. The representation cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation, dated 20.02.2008, made by the petitioner, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.09.2008. kdl