THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6995 of 2010 April 29, 2010 Between: Mudum Nageswara Rao, S/o.Tataiah And another … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6995 of 2010 ORDER: The Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch of Kuppanapudi Gram Panchayat of Akiveedu Mandal in West Godavari District, filed instant writ petition challenging the proceedings/order dated 12.3.2010 passed by third respondent, namely, District Collector. By the said order, third respondent while revising the earlier sanction order dated 15.1.2010 sanctioned works for five Villages in Akiveedu Mandal, virtually cancelling the works sanctioned to Kuppanapudi Gram Panchayat. The case of the petitioners is that under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme taken up in accordance with Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, District Collector issued proceedings on 15.1.2010 according sanction for the work of laying/construction of road from Kuppanapudi to Tallakodu at an estimated cost of Rs.45,84,000/-. According to petitioners such work was sanctioned taking into BC/SC/ST population of 1,200 people in the Village. They also allege that if the sanctioned road is laid, distance between Kuppanapudi and Akiveedu will be reduced by 2 KMs and the distance between Kuppanapudi and Juvvalapalem will be reduced by 4 KMs. The works approved by Grama Sabha were also agreed by fourth respondent vide resolution No.463, dated 09.11.2009. District Collector accorded sanction on 15.1.2010 and directed to take up 24 works in Akiveedu at an estimated cost of Rs.277.17 lakhs for developing Zilla Parishad (ZP) roads. After receiving sanction order dated 15.1.2010, Gram Panchayat passed resolution No.182, dated 11.2.2010 resolving to constitute Committee to complete the work. Thereafter, fifth respondent was requested to issue work commencement order. Petitioners further allege that Mutyala Venkateswara Rao, ZPTC Member, who is enemically disposed of words second petitioner, approached the Grievance Cell of District Collectorate requesting to cancel the work. Third respondent ignoring the resolution of ZP issued impugned proceedings. It is contended by petitioners that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India being arbitrary and reasons are untenable. At the stage of admission itself, learned Advocate General filed counter affidavit of the District Collector. Therefore, this Court heard submissions of the counsel, who reiterated their position during oral submissions. A perusal of the impugned order would show that after sanction of the works by the Collector on 15.1.2010 at an estimated cost of Rs.45.84 lakhs for laying Kuppanapudi and Tallakodu road, it appears, the Executive Engineer, Narsapur, vide letters dated 18.2.2010 and 10.3.2010 as well as MLA, Kovvur, requested to issue revised sanction orders as the work would hamper ongoing Integrated Novel Development In Rural And Model Municipal Areas (INDIRAMMA) housing scheme implementation. This aspect of the matter is further explained in the counter affidavit of the District Collector. For ready reference Paragraph 5 thereof is extracted as under. It is respectfully submitted that, it is true that initially on the basis of the prioritized works amongst 857 identified projects approved by the Zilla Praja Parishad totally amounting to Rs.120.21 crore, the subject road was also to be laid. On the basis of the communication of the prioritized works amongst 857 works indicated by the Zilla Praja Parishad administrative sanction for 576 works for Rs.58.27 crores was granted by the District Coordinator by note file proceedings dated 15.1.2010 and 06.2.2010. Subsequently during the course of finding out the viability and practicability of laying the subject road, it was found on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Executive Engineer that the roads as proposed and approved in respect of Kuppanapudi Village to Tallakodu Village with an outlay of Rs.45 lakhs is not practicable. Having regard to the fact that in the area abutting the proposed road works have been grounded to construct houses for poor under INDIRAMMA Housing Scheme and the proposed road now identified would not be completed with the time frame earmarked therein and therefore it was suggested to lay the present road in the next year, to ensure that on going works in INDIRAMMA Housing Scheme do not get affected. For the purpose of leveling of site work hundred of tractors are flying on the proposed road daily. The above letter was communicated by the Deputy Executive Engineer to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, which letter along with other similarly received proposals for change of works was placed before the Zilla Praja Parishad for amendments/revision to the works identified and approved earlier by proceedings dated 15.1.2010. Accordingly the same was placed before the meeting specifically with the above agenda and the meeting was convened on 11.2.2010 in which the proposed amendments were approved by the general body on 11.2.2010 and on the basis of such approval to the revision of works, consequential proceedings have been issued by me on 12.3.2010 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In plain terms, there are two reasons of revising the sanction and allotting funds to 5 Villages instead of one Village. The work of construction of houses under INDIRAMMA scheme is being taken up in the place and if the road is laid due to persistent movement of tractors in connection with supplying material for construction of houses under INDIRAMMA scheme, road could not be laid with good quality and within the time frame. This Court fails to understand as to how the said reason is untenable. The submission of counsel for petitioners that the District Collector cannot ignore the resolution of ZP and that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice has to be stated to be rejected. There is no such right the Act confers on Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch nor any prejudice is said to have caused if for valid reasons, District Programme Officer exercised discretion in objective manner. There is also no infirmity in the concerned Executive Engineer and the local MLA bringing to the notice of the District Collector, the factors which may render earlier sanctioned work unviable. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 29, 2010 YS