IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.24759 of 2010 Between: M.Venkateshwaramma. … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2nd floor, HUDA Hermitage Office Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Venkateshwer Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Panchayat Raj for R.1 & R.2. None for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in constituting the Water Shed Committee for Chennaram Gram Panchayat, Gopalpet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, without notice to the villagers and the Gram Panchayat, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential relief of setting aside proceedings dated 23-9-2010 of respondent No.2. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Chennaram Gram Panchayat. The Government of India has evolved a scheme for Integrated Watershed Management Programme and sanctioned 110 projects to be implemented in the DPAP blocks of 12 districts in Andhra Pradesh State. For this purpose, the State Government has issued Circular No.2612/IWMP/2010, dated 29-3-2010, which contains guidelines for formation of User Groups and Watershed Committees for implementation of Watershed Projects. Guideline No.7 envisaged that for every Gram Panchayat, Gram Sabha shall be conducted by involving all the User Groups for constituting the Watershed Committee to implement the Watershed project with the technical support of the Watershed Technical Assistant and Resource Organization. Guideline No.9 provided that the Chairman of the Committee shall be selected from among the members of the Watershed Committee in the Grama Sabha. The grievance of the petitioner is that without involving him, the Upa-Sarpanch and the Members of the Gram Panchaytat, except one member, respondent No.2 constituted the Watershed Committee for their Gram Panchayat and appointed respondent No.3 as its Chairman in the purported Grama Sabha meeting stated to have been held on 23-9- 2010. The petitioner specifically pleaded that no notices were issued to him, the Upa-Sarpanch or any other member of the Gram Panchayat before conducting the Grama Sabha. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that under Section 6(5) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act”), the Sarpanch alone is competent to convene and preside over the meeting of Gram Sabha and, in his absence, the Upa-Sarpanch is entitled to discharge these functions; and that the so called Gram Sabha held by respondent No.2, under the Chairmanship of an MPTC member, is illegal. Despite taking time, no counter-affidavits have been filed by any of the respondents. Though served, respondent No.3 has not entered appearance. I have carefully gone through the minutes of the meeting, dated 23-9-2010. It is stated therein that on 23- 9-2010 the Gram Sabha was held in the office premises of the Gram Panchayat under the Chairmanship of Smt.Vimalamma, MPTC Member; and that in the said meeting the Watershed Committee was constituted with respondent No.3 as its Chairman. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on instructions, submitted that though a notice was given to the petitioner, she has failed to convene the Gram Sabha; and that, therefore, respondent No.2 arranged the Gram Sabha meeting under the Chairmanship of an MPTC member. I cannot accept this submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader because no material is placed before this Court to show that such a notice was given to the petitioner. Even assuming that a notice was given and that the petitioner has not co-operated in conducting the Gram Sabha, respondent No.2 ought to have requested the Upa-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who is empowered to convene and preside over the Gram Sabha to perform the functions of the Sarpanch in this regard. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that such a course was adopted by him. Moreover, the specific allegation of the petitioner that except one member, no other members of the Gram Panchayat, including the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch, have participated in the Gram Sabha, remained uncontroverted. These undisputed facts would clearly establish that the purported Gram Sabha got conducted by respondent No.2 is contrary to the specific provision of the Act and is obviously a make believe affair. Accordingly, constitution of Watershed Committee for Chennaram Gram Panchayat, Gopalpet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District and appointment of respondent No.3 as its Chariman are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to take appropriate steps for proper convening of Gram Sabha through petitioner and, in case he fails to co-operate, through Upa-Sarpanch for constitution of Watershed Committee. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:07-2-2010 MNR