IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.5460 of 2008 Between: Yeddu Nagesh, s/o Narsaiah, Thumkunta Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet (M), Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Gram Panchayat, Thumkunta, rep by its Sarpanch Suresh, aged about 40 years, r/o Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Gram Panchayat, Thumkunta, rep by its Sarpanch Y. Buchaiah, s/o Narsaiah, r/o. Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 may be pleased to issue any writ, order or directions more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents in preventing the use of drainage water from septic tank in Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. SRIDHAR Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP for PANCHAYAT RAJ &RURAL DEV. Counsel for Respondents 2&3: Mr. G. Elisha The Court made the following: ORDER: - The petitioner is a Ward Member of Thumkunta Gram Panchayat and he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition with the following prayer— “to issue any writ, order or directions more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents in preventing the use of drainage water from septic tank in Thumkunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and to pass such other orders.” 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 3. From the facts it appears that petitioner gave a representation on 23-11-2007 to first respondent and a Memo also was issued by first respondent on 04-12-2007 bringing it to the notice of the Extension Officer to initiate necessary action. However, as nothing had transpired a further representation was given and first respondent again issued a Memo on 02-02-2008. However, as it was of no avail, petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the material placed on record, it is suffice to direct the respondents to see that the said representations given by the petitioner and the Memos issued by first respondent on 04-12-2007 and 02-02-2008, be considered and necessary action be initiated at the earliest preferably within a period of two months from today. 4. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. ________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.24-03-2008 GLV ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1. The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}