THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.489 OF 2003 15.06.2010 Between: Ayacutdars Committee, Eguva Ayyavari Cheruvu, Gurrappagaripalli Panchayat, Veeraballi Mandal, Cuddapah District, Rep.by its President Rayachoty Reddenna. ….Petitioner AND The District Collector, Cuddapah, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.489 OF 2003 ORDER: Ayacutdars Committee, Eguva Ayyavari Cheruvu (minor irrigation source) of Gurrappagaripalli Panchayat filed instant writ petition challenging the Memo Rc.No.AE-2/1724/02, dated 23.12.2002 of second respondent directing the Deputy Executive Engineer (PR) to entrust the work of ‘restoration of breached tank of Eguva Ayyavari Cheruvu’ to fourth respondent as illegal and arbitrary being contrary to Government Order in G.O.Rt.No.1863, dated 23.11.1998. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.1863 directing formation of Ayacutdars Committee and entrustment of work of maintenance of minor irrigation sources to such committees. The petitioner committee was formed and when the Collector sanctioned an amount of Rs.60,000/- for restoration of the tank, the third respondent by communication bearing Roc.No.NABARD/B/2002, dated 26.11.2002 requested second respondent to entrust the work to Rayachoty Reddanna, President of petitioner committee for completion of the work. Ignoring the same, the Executive Engineer issued the impugned order. This Court heard counsel for petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The Government Order in G.O.Rt.No.1863, dated 23.11.1998 and the relevant documents have been perused by this Court. A perusal of various documents would show that in the matter of maintenance works of minor irrigation sources, the person nominated by Ayacutdars Committee alone should be entrusted with the work. This has been followed by second respondent more in breach ignoring the communication of third respondent to entrust the work to Rayachoty Reddenna, President of the Committee. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. If the proposal is still alive, the District Collector may consider entrusting the work to the person nominated by the Petitioner committee in accordance with G.O.Rt.No.1863, dated 23.11.1998. This is, however, subject to the said scheme being in force and also subject to other modifications, if any. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.06.2010 Pln