IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 24358 of 2007 Between: Bhogireddi Govinda Rao S/o.Danaiah Village Level Works Committee Tholeru (V) Veeravasaram (M) W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Engineer (PR) RWS Division, Kovvur, W.G. District. 2 The Dy. Executive Engineer RWS Narsapuram, W.G. District. 3 The Asst. Engineer, RWS Veeravasaram, W.G. 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 writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in completing the Check Measurements in respect of the works executed by the petitioner and pass such aother or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in finalising the check measurements in respect of the works executed by the petitioner, despite the representation being made by the petitioner on 15.10.2007, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is granted the work of construction of Flight of steps to drinking water tank at Tholeru (v), Veeravasaram (M), West Godavari District, with an estimated value of Rs.50,000/-, and accordingly, the work orders were issued on 12.04.2007 and agreement to that effect was concluded by the 2nd respondent by issuing Memo dated 30.04.2007 and pursuant thereto, he has executed the work within the prescribed time of two months. Alleging that, despite representation being made by the petitioner on 15.10.2007 to conduct check measurements, the respondents failed to take check measurements and consequently the payments payable to the petitioner are not being paid, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the issuance of work order in favour of the petitioner by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings dated 12.04.2007, the conclusion of agreement by agreement No.6/2007-08 dated 30.04.2007 by the 2nd respondent and the representation made by the petitioner for recording measurement book and making payment for the work executed by him are not disputed. However, the request of the petitioner for recording measurement book and recommending for payment is denied on the ground that the work executed by the petitioner was not within the knowledge of the 3rd respondent and the same was not executed under the purview of the 3rd respondent. It is also stated that the drinking water tanks in the village were inspected by the 3rd respondent on 03.05.2007 and he submitted a detailed report to the 2nd respondent on 08.05.2007 stating that there is no possibility for marking the flight of steps as the drinking water tanks are full of water. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the urgency, the petitioner has completed the work entrusted to him and the denial of the 3rd respondent to record the measurement book and making payments to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has executed the work without his knowledge is not correct. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the respondents has reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with the work order on 12.04.2007 and the agreement in that regard was concluded by memo, dated 30.04.2007. In the counter affidavit, the dispute of the 3rd respondent is only with regard to recording of the measurement book and making payment on the ground that the petitioner has executed the work without his knowledge. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to inspect the work executed by the petitioner, after obtaining necessary reports from the 2nd and 3rd respondents, and take a decision on the representation dated 15.10.2007 purported to have been filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 28.07.2009 v v