IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.18607 & 18613 of 2006 WP.No.18607 of 2006 Between: Kurra Kanakaiah … Petitioner And The Mandal Parishad, Karimnagar Mandal & District. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for the respondents: None The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.18607 and 18613 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners, who are the residents of Kamanpur and Asif Nagar Villages, Karimnagar Mandal and District, filed these two writ petitions for Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not taking up the works pertaining to construction of a C.C. road and a compound wall for Asif Nagar Ambedkar Community Hall, as illegal. I have heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners. At the hearing no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent though the name of Sri R. Prem Sagar is shown as counsel appearing for it. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that by resolution No.A/51/04-06, dated 07.06.2006 the respondent sanctioned various works in the Mandal. Item No.5 of the Additional Agenda pertains to construction of a C.C. road in Kamanpur village and item No.8 relates to construction of a compound wall for Asif Nagar Ambedkar Community Hall at the estimated costs of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the said works were sanctioned, so far they have not been undertaken. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Karimnagar Mandal, wherein it is inter alia stated that after the Mandal Parishad has passed the resolution on 06.06.2006, a new President has assumed the office and that some of the works mentioned in the resolution were kept in abeyance by him vide his proceedings dated 29.08.2006. He further stated that he is awaiting the decision of the new general body meeting to be convened for taking a decision on the execution of the works, which were kept in abeyance. At the hearing, there is no representation for the respondent and therefore no information has been placed before the Court on the status of the abeyance order. In these circumstances, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondent to take a final decision on the issue pertaining to the execution of the works already sanctioned. If the earlier abeyance order is still in force, the respondent shall take a decision thereon. Unless the general body reviews the resolution dated 07.06.2006, the respondent shall undertake the works and complete their execution expeditiously. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, WPMP.Nos.23402 of 2006 and 7741 of 2007 in WP.No.18607 of 2006 and WPMP.Nos.23410 of 2006 and 7061 of 2007 in WP.No.18613 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.08.2010. ES