THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6601 of 2010 April 29, 2010 Between: Purushothapalli Gram Panchayat, represented by its Sarpanch, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District … Petitioner AND District Collector-cum-District Programme Co-ordination Officer, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, West Godavari District, Eluru And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6601 of 2010 ORDER: Purushothapalli Gram Panchayat in West Godavari District filed instant writ petition assailing the proceedings of first respondent dated 12.3.2010. By impugned proceedings, first respondent revised the sanction order dated 07.1.2010 whereunder initially the petitioner Gram Panchayat was allotted two works under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme taken up in accordance with Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. It is the case of petitioner Gram Panchayat that the District Collector issued proceedings dated 07.1.2010 inter alia sanctioning (i) the work of construction of road from Nimmagadda Subba Rao Paka to Vijjeswaram link road at an estimated cost of Rs.11.50 lakhs and (ii) the work being laying of road in Schedule Tribe area from Ramalayam to Devara Gangaiah’s house at an estimated cost of Rs.2,08,000/-. Petitioner Gram Panchayat passed resolution requesting fourth respondent to issue work commencement order. While the same was under consideration, first respondent issued impugned proceedings cancelling the previous works and allotting the works to Jeedigunta and Tadimalla Gram Panchayats instead of petitioner Gram Panchayat. Petitioner contends that the cancellation of works sanctioned is violation of principles of natural justice, that there is no justification for diverting funds to respondents 5 and 6 Gram Panchayats and that there is urgent need for laying road in ST Colony of the Village. At the stage of admission itself, learned Advocate General has filed counter affidavit. The justification for cancelling the sanction given earlier and re-allotting the funds for respondents 5 and 6 has been stated in the following terms. 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 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 corres was granted by me 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 one road at Purushothapalli Village to Ramalayam to Devara Gangayya house in ST area for Rs.2.08 lakhs, it is observed that there are only 4 ST families in that area and remaining all are non-ST families and another road was also in Purushothapalli Village from Nimmagadda Subba Rao hut to Vijjeswaram link road for Rs.11.50 lakhs. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Undrajavaram has reported that the work starts from Purushothapalli village at Nimmagadda Subba Rao hut and ends at Pendyala pumping Scheme, but not reaching Vijjeswaram, and the Dy.E.E. opined that NREGS link road should connect two habitations. But, in this case the road is not connecting two habitations. Because of the reasons explained it is not practicable and viable. 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 from the ZPTC member from Nidadavole requesting to cancel the works and proposed new works was placed before the Zilla Praja Parishad for amendments / revision to the works identified and approved earlier by proceedings dated 15.1.2010 and 06.2.2010. 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 the 1st respondent on 12.3.2010 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Absolutely, there is deviation from the provisions of the Act while issuing the revised orders. This Court; after perusing the pleadings and hearing the counsel for petitioner and Advocate General – is not able to accept the submission of petitioner. The scope of judicial review in matters of this nature is very limited. No mala fides are attributed to first respondent or the other work implementing agencies. The counter affidavit has disclosed very valid reasons for cancelling the works sanctioned to petitioner Gram Panchayat and allotting the works to respondents 5 and 6 Gram Panchayats. When the Executive Authority has exercised discretion in an objective manner merely because other option is available, writ Court cannot interfere. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 29, 2010 YS