THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.22242 of 2010 Date : 25-1-2011 Between : Bhumireddy Devi w/o.Pulla Reddy .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Smt.Ch.Veda Vani, Standing Counsel The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the Sarpanch of Nagisettipalle Gram Panchayath, Brahmmamgari Matham, Kadapa District, for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings dated 25-3-2010 of respondent No.1 whereby the work relating to formation of road upto WBM Grade II surface inducing CD works connecting S.C. habitation from Peddirajupalle S.C. colony to Nagisettypalle, hamlet of Dirasavancha has been entrusted to respondent No.4-Gram Panchayath. The petitioner pleaded that Nagisettypalle and Dirasavancha are two Gram Panchayaths and that under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) the above mentioned work was sanctioned at an estimated cost of Rs.19,14,434/-. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that out of the length of 2.05 K.Ms., 90% of the work falls within Nagisettypalle Gram Panchayath and that therefore the entrustment of work to respondent No.4-Gram Panchayath within whose territory only 10% of the work falls is arbitrary and illegal. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that a major stretch of the above mentioned work falls within the ambit of Dirasavancha Gram Panchayath and that the name of the work was accordingly christened after the said Gram Panchayath. It is further elaborated that out of the total length of 2150 metres, 1700 metres fall within the territory of Dirasavancha Gram Panchayath and that the remaining stretch of 450 metres falls in Nagisettypalle Gram Panchayath. The petitioner has not pleaded that the NREGS provides for any guidelines governing a situation of this nature where the work falls within the territories of two or more Gram Panchayaths. While the fact pleaded by the petitioner that 90% of the proposed work falls within its territory is specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and it was further pleaded that major portion of the work falls within respondent No.4 limits, the petitioner failed to show that entrustment of work to respondent No.4 violates any of the statutory provisions or at least the scheme under which the work is being executed. In the absence of specific provision regulating the method and manner of entrustment of the work, the administrative authority shall be conceded to have discretion in the matter of entrustment of works. Unless such discretion exercised by the authority is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness or mala fides, this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere with the decision of the administrative functionaries. Indeed, going by the uncontroverted averments contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, out of 2150 meters of road length, 1700 meters length falls within respondent No.4 territory. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent Nos.1 to 3 have committed any illegality or arbitrariness in entrusting the execution of the work to respondent No.4. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.28339/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 25-1-2011 AM