IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.6325 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.13453 OF 2008 In WRIT PETITION NO.6325 OF 2008 Between: Bellamkonda Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Sarpanch, Mr. P.S.K. Mastan Sharif, S/o. Moulali, Aged about 36 Years, R/o. Bellamkonda Village & Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Rural Development, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector-Cum-Coordinator Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Mandal Development Officer/Programme, Development Officer, Bellamkonda, Guntur District. 4 The Assistant Engineer Panchayat Raj, Bellamkonda Village & Mandal, Guntur 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings R.C.No. NREGS/2007 dt. 17-03-2008 as illegal arbitrary and in contemplation of the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner Gram Panchayat to execute the works sanctioned by 2nd respondent in R.C.No. 39/2007-W3 dt. 27-11-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. SHAIKKARIMULLA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. In WRIT PETITION NO : 13453 of 2008 Between: Kandipaud Gram panchayat, Rep.by its Sarpanch Mrs.Chintareddy Saidamma,W/o.Chintareddy Saireddy R/o.Kandipadu village & Mandal Bellamkonda,Guntur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Rural Development ,Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector-cum-Coordinator ,Guntur Guntur District 3 The Mandal Development Officer/Programme Development officer, Kandipaud, Guntur District 4 The Assistant Engineer Panchayat RAj, Kandipadu village & Mandal,Guntur 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 will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings R.C.No.NREGS/2007 dated 17.3.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and in contemplation of the provisions of the Act and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner Gram panchayat to execute the works sanctioned by 2nd respondent in R.C.No.39/2007-W3 dated 14.12.2007. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. SHAIKKARIMULLA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following common order : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.6325 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.13453 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER : The two Gram Panchayats situated in Bellamkonda Mandal of Guntur District filed these writ petitions seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the Mandal Development Officer, Bellamkonda dated 17.3.2008 are arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner Gram Panchayats to execute the works sanctioned by the District Collector, Guntur under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme sanctioned under the provisions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents. At the outset, it is to be noted that the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) was enacted to provide for enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is not in dispute that the District Collector is the District Programme Co-ordinator for the implementation of the schemes notified by the State Government for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the said powers, the District Collector, Guntur accorded administrative sanction for various works proposed under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Schemes in different Gram Panchayats. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj allotted the works to the respective Gram Panchayats, including the petitioners herein and according to the petitioners the works are about to be completed. While so, the 3rd respondent- Mandal Development Officer issued the impugned proceedings dated 17.3.2008 whereunder all the “material component works” were directed to be executed through the Department on the ground of administrative convenience. The said action of the 3rd respondent is challenged in these writ petitions contending inter alia that the 3rd respondent has no power or authority to issue the impugned proceedings. It is also contended that the impugned proceedings are not only in violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act but are also defeating the very object of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is stated that as clarified by the Commissioner of Rural Development, Government of A.P., Hyderabad vide Circular dated 28.3.2008 the works sanctioned under the provisions of the Act can also be executed departmentally and therefore the impugned proceedings were issued for getting the works done by the Assistant Engineer departmentally. It is further stated that since the work is being done by the job card holders selected by the Gram Panchayats and particularly since the impugned orders are only with regard to “material component works” which have not yet been executed by the Gram Panchayats the contentions of the petitioner Gram Panchayats are untenable. As could be seen from the rival claims made by the parties, it appears that the only some of the works were directed to be executed departmentally for administrative convenience. The 3rd respondent relies upon a Circular dated 28.3.2008 issued by the 1st respondent for execution of such works departmentally. It is true that under Section 16 of the Act, Gram Panchayats shall be responsible for identification of the projects in the Gram Panchayat area to be taken up under a Scheme as per the recommendations of the Gram Sabha for executing and supervising such works. However, nothing could be pointed out by the petitioners to show that all the works sanctioned shall be executed only through the Gram Panchayats. Be that as it may, even assuming that the petitioners are having any grievance as to the impugned procedure adopted by the respondents, they ought to have approached the District Programme Coordinator whose functions, as per Section 14(3) of the Act included redressal of the grievances of the applicants. Without exhausting such alternative statutory remedy, the petitioners cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent – District Collector, who is the District Programme Co-ordinator under the Act, to treat these writ petitions as complaints of the petitioners under the Act and enquire into their grievance and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after calling for the necessary record and after hearing all the concerned parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. Registry shall communicate copies of the writ petitions together with affidavits to the 2nd respondent along with this order. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 02.07.2008 gbs Note::-CC in 2 days. (B/O) gbs