THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9364 of 2011 Date:08.04.2011 Between: Sagi Srinivasa Raju and others ..... Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Venugopal Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri G.Elisha, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7: Sri Thoom Srinivas The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash the proceedings in BA No.5/2010 dated 11.10.2010 of respondent No.4. The petitioners are residents of Kadali Village, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District. Respondent No.8, who was appointed as L.P.G. distributor of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, applied to respondent No.4 for grant of permission for construction of a godown for storing the L.P.G. cylinders. By proceedings dated 11.10.2010, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat has granted building permission. Feeling aggrieved by the said permission, the present writ petition is filed. The main ground on which the permission has been challenged is that the godown is proposed to be located within the prohibited distance as envisaged in Clause 5 of Schedule V Form F of the Gas Cylinder Rules, 2004. At the hearing, Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, did not dispute that under Section 128(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), the impugned order granting permission by the Panchayat Secretary, who is the executive authority of respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat, is amenable for an appeal before the Gram Panchayat and if the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision that may be taken by the Gram Panchayat, there is a right of further appeal under Section 128 (2) of the Act before the District Panchayat Officer. In view of the availability of these alternative remedies and in the absence of any reasons put-forth by the petitioners for bypassing these remedies, which in my opinion are efficacious, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the abovementioned remedies. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.11602 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th April, 2011 GHN