THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6454 of 2010 Dated:16.04.2010 Between: B.Madhavaiah. …Petitioner and The Govt.of A.P., Rep.by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Progs.III) Department, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6454 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Sarpanch of M.Bandameedapalli Village of Raptadu Mandal in Anantapur District. He filed the instant writ petition assailing the communication dated 12.03.2010 issued by respondent No.4 authorizing respondent No.5 to commence the four works under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) (hereafter called NREGS works). He also seeks consequential direction to respondents to withdraw the letter and entrust NREGS works to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that as per Government memo dated 04.03.2010, NREGS works are to be entrusted to the Sarpanch or MPTC Member who shall be responsible for the execution of the works under NREGS. He alleges that respondent No.5 taking advantage of the petitioner’s absence convened the meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 08.03.2010 at 10:00 am and got a resolution passed (hereafter called, first resolution) nominating respondent No.6 as Convener for executing the works. The petitioner further alleges that on the same day he convened the meeting at 3:00 pm, cancelled the resolution passed earlier at 10:00 am and Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution (hereafter called, second resolution) nominating the petitioner as Convener for execution of the works. It is his case that when the matter was complained to respondent No.3, he issued a memo dated 09.03.2010 directing respondent No.4 to submit a report. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 issued the impugned letter entrusting the work to respondent No.6 authorizing to commence the works. At the stage of admission itself respondent No.6 appeared through Counsel and filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit he alleges as follows. On 27.02.2010 respondent No.5 issued notices to all the members and the petitioner for convening the meeting on 08.03.2010 at 10:00 am. Out of twelve, six ward members were present. None of them supported the Sarpanch. He walked out of the meeting. Therefore, at 11:00 am under the Chairmanship of Upa Sarpanch the meeting was conducted and all the six members present resolved to entrust the NREGS works to respondent No.6. On 15.03.2010 respondent No.5 gave a complaint to the District Panchayat Officer (DPO) stating that after the meeting on 08.03.2010 the petitioner entered the house of respondent No.5 and took away the relevant records and did not return the same in spite of repeated requests. He also alleges that the petitioner might add additions and deletions in the relevant records. In response thereto, by proceedings dated 20.03.2010 the DPO directed the Divisional Panchayat Officer to enquire into the matter. It is further alleged that the petitioner with a mala fide intention manipulated the documents and filed the instant writ petition. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for respondent No.6 and Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. This Court also perused the documents filed by the petitioner, and those filed by respondent No.6. The notice issued by respondent No.5 on 27.02.2010 calling the presence of the members in the meeting as well as the first and second resolutions have been perused. The Xerox copy of the first resolution shows that after the same was recorded in the relevant book, the petitioner endorsed that he is canceling the said meeting meaning that he is canceling the resolution. Therefore, prima facie, this Court is convinced that the second resolution was passed by supporters of the petitioner without there being valid cancellation of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, in the eye of law there is no valid resolution nominating the petitioner as Convener for execution of NREGS works. As the enquiry is pending before the Divisional Panchayat Officer (as ordered by DPO) regarding the allegation that the petitioner forcibly took away the relevant records from the house of respondent No.5 it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion on the same. This order shall not be construed as precluding or stopping such enquiry by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. Further, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the first resolution it is always open to him to make a representation to the Government under Section 246 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act for cancellation of the same. Insofar as the present case is concerned, this Court is convinced that the action of respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned “work commencement order” is in accordance with the first resolution which has not been validly cancelled. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .04.2010 vs