THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.22621 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioners claim to be the former Ward Members of Padamati Laxmipuram Gram Panchayat, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. They have filed this writ petition questioning the construction of the Gram Panchayat office building as contrary to the approved plan on the site other than earmarked by the concerned authority. Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat has no office building of its own, therefore administrative sanction was accorded by the District Collector, Prakasam District vide proceedings ROC No.920/2010 (Pan) A3, dated 20-07-2010 for construction of a building in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The said scheme contemplates that the construction should be made at a place determined by the Gram Panchayat by adopting a resolution in that regard. The petitioners filed this writ petition contending that the panchayat did not adopt any such resolution and therefore the construction undertaken at Padamati Laxmipuram Village is not permissible. It is contended that the construction of the building at the said village is not convenient to the public as it is located at a far off place. The petitioners therefore submitted a representation opposing the construction of the building and on the said representation, the 2nd respondent-District Panchayat Officer, Ongole caused an enquiry through the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kandukur Division, the 3rd respondent herein. During the pendency of the enquiry, since the 7th respondent has undertaken the construction, the petitioners filed this writ petition. Heard Smt.K.Aruna, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 and Sri G.Elisha, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 to 8. The main grievance of petitioners as stated above is that the 7th respondent has undertaken construction without there being a resolution of the Gram Panchayat which is an essential condition under the Scheme. In order to verify the said statement, this Court directed the learned standing counsel to produce the minutes book and the attendance register. On a perusal of the same, it was noticed that a meeting was held on 25-06-2011 in which the panchayat passed a resolution. The 1st petitioner was also present in the said meeting and appended her signature in the attendance register. It is therefore incorrect to state that there was no resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. The 2nd Respondent considered the representation of petitioners and passed an order ROC No.83/2011(Pts) A3, dated 31-10-2011 adverting to the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and that the construction has already been started and the work is also completed with an expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the construction undertaken is not legal. Insofar as location is concerned, it is within the domain of the concerned authorities. The resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat reflects the opinion of the public. Therefore, this Court cannot substitute its opinion on this aspect of the matter. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders dated 10-08-2011 passed in W.P.M.P. No.27644 of 2011 stands annulled. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 10th November, 2011. Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.22621 of 2011 Date : 10-11-2011 Between : B.Chinna Nagamma & Others .. Petitioners And The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole & Others .. Respondents