HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.26950 of 2010 Date : 9-2-2011 Between : Smt.C.Narasamma w/o.C.Raghavaiah .. Petitioner And The District Collector-cum-District Programme Co-ordinator, The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Chittoor District Chittoor and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Ram Bhoopal Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 : A.G.P. for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.3 : Smt.Ch.Vedavani, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat The Court made the following : ORDER: At the Interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri P.Ram Bhopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 and Smt.Ch.Veda Vani, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is the Sarpanch of Gudimallam Gram Panchayat, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.220, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.II) Department, dated 11-6-2010, sanctioning buildings for Gram Panchayat offices in all the 22 Districts of the State. For Chittoor District, as many as 437 buildings were sanctioned under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Gudimallam is one such Gram Panchayat for which a new building was sanctioned. By resolution dated 22-6-2010, the work of construction of the building was entrusted to the petitioner by the Gram Panchayat. However, some of the Members appear to have been dissatisfied with the said decision and got a special meeting convened for this purpose. A fresh resolution was evidently passed on 19-8-2010 by the Gram Panchayat entrusting execution of the work to respondent No.7. The petitioner is stated to have made a representation to respondent No.1 against the said resolution. Respondent No.2 vide his order dated 7-10-2010 directed implementation of resolution dated 19-8-2010. Feeling aggrieved by these events leading to her displacement, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The fulcrum on which the Writ Petition is mainly based is that when once a resolution was passed on 22-6-2010, no further resolutions can be passed within a period of three months of passing such a resolution and that therefore subsequent resolution dated 19-8-2010 before expiry of three months cannot be sustained in law. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 it is inter alia stated that on the instructions of the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, the Panchayat Secretary served the agenda notice of special meeting to all the Ward Members on 13-8- 2010 with the approval of the Sarpanch (the petitioner) but the petitioner, Sri M.Rathnam, Upa Sarpanch and Sri Gurudevaiah, Ward Member, failed to attend the special meeting held on 19-8-2010 at 10.00 a.m. in Gudimallam temple and that the remaining six Ward Members have attended the special meeting as envisaged under Section 37 of A.P. Panchayat Raj 1994, Act headed by respondent No.7 as Chair Person and that in the special meeting, respondent No.7 was elected as Work Executing Member by substituting the petitioner. It is further stated that on the report of the Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Yerpedu, dated 29-8-2010, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chandragiri was directed to examine the records pertaining to the special meeting conducted on 19- 8-2010 and submit a report on the legality of the said meeting; that the Divisional Panchayat Officer in his report dated 1-10-2010 has opined that the agenda of the meeting specifying the change of Work Executing Member was served to all the Ward Members of the Gram Panchayat and that the special meeting conducted on 19-8-2010 is in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.227, Panchayat Raj, Rural Development & Relief (Pts.II) Department dated 13-4-1995 and that the meeting conducted is in accordance with the Rules. In order to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the face of resolution passed on 22-6-2010 in the meeting held on that day, no further resolution should have been passed, G.O.Ms.No.227, dated 13-4-1995, needs to be examined. The said G.O. contains Rules relating to the proceedings of Gram Panchayats and the Committees thereof. Rule 10 envisages that no resolution of a Gram Panchayat should be modified or cancelled within three months after the passing thereof except at a meeting specially convened in that behalf and by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat supported by not less than one half of the total strength of members. The submission of the learned counsel that no meeting can be held within three months after passing of a resolution is not supported by the above noted Rule under which an exception is carved out that a resolution of the Gram Panchayat can be modified or cancelled within three months at a meeting specially convened in that behalf and by a resolution of the Gram Panchayat supported by not less than one half of the total strength of the members. As noted above, para-4 of the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 categorically stated that the agenda notice of the special meeting was approved by the petitioner herself and in pursuance thereof a special meeting was held on 19-8- 2010, which the petitioner, the Upa-Sarpanch and another Ward Member by name Gurudevaiah have not attended and that all the remaining six Ward Members have attended the special meeting and amended the previous resolution by substituting the petitioner with respondent No.7 as the Work Executing Member. Therefore, it cannot be said that resolution dated 19-8-2010 is in contravention of the Rules governing the meetings of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has not denied the averment of the respondents that the meeting was convened in accordance with the Rules prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.227 dated 13-4-1995. Even under G.O.Ms.No.220, dated 11-6-2010, the Gram Panchayat is responsible for execution of the works and for this purpose, each Gram Panchayat can either authorize the Sarpanch or one of the members of the Gram Panchayat who shall be known as Work Executing Member of the Gram Panchayat to execute the work. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel, the only change that was brought about by resolution dated 19-8-2010 was with reference to the Work Executing Member. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 9-2-2011 AM