IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3262 of 2009 Between: Boodavati Venkatanarayana S/o.Kotaiah Kondapi Gram Panchayat, Kondapi, Kondapi Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Asst. Engineer, Gram Panchayat, Kondapi, Prakasam District. 4 The Panchayat Secretary, Kondapi Village Prakasam District. 5 The Sarpanch, Kondapi Gram Panchayat, Kondapi Mandal Prakasam 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 in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondents 4 and 5 in not allotting and nominating two works i.e., (1) ID No.52514 Kondepi CC Road in Kondepi village and (2) ID No.52515 Kondepi/Kattavaripalem CC Road in Kattavaripalem Village in pursuance of administrative sanction given by the 1st respondent by proceedings Rc.No.226/KON/Plg.I/2008 dt. 17.11.2008 after following the procedure prescribed by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional violating Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the respondents particularly respondents 4 and 5 to forthwith allot the nominate two works i.e., (1) ID No.52514 Kondepi CC Road in Kondepi village and (2) ID No.52515 Kondepi/Kattavaripalem CC Road in Kattavari palem Village in pursuance of administrative sanction given by the 1st respondent by proceedings Rc.No.226/KON/Plg.I/2008 dt. 17.11.2008 after following the procedure prescribed by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is elected as a Upa Sarpanch of Kondepi Gram Panchayat in the year 2007. He filed this writ petition stating that the 1st respondent accorded administrative sanction for the works under Development Programme Scheme for various villages in Kondepi Mandal in pursuance of the proposal received from the District Incharge Minister and Kattavaripalem and Kondepi are one of such villages. Since Kattavaripalem and Kondepi Villages are under the jurisdiction of Kondepi Gram Panchayat, the Sapanch is the authority to allot the works in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Works Committee. The grievance of the petitioner is that though administrative sanction was accorded, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat i.e., the 5th respondent herein is not convening the meeting to constitute Works Committee, which will allot the works since he was not having majority support of his group and thus he filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to forthwith nominate two works i.e., (1) ID No.52514 Kondepi CC Road in Kondepi village and (2) ID No.52515 Kondepi/Kattavaripalem CC Road in Kattavari palem Village in pursuance of administrative sanction given by the 1st respondent by proceedings Rc.No.226/KON/Plg.I/2008 dt. 17.11.2008 after following the procedure prescribed by the 1st respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. Issue Rule nisi. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on 19.2.2009, the 4th respondent – Panchayat Secretary, Kondapi Gram Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit stating that only 11 members attended the Gram Panchayat meeting held on 19.1.2009 to propose certain names for constitution of Works Committee to enable it to nominate the works to be carried out as per the administrative sanction and that the supporters of the petitioner created much nuisance and tried to make the meeting failed and, therefore, the meeting was postponed to another date. It is an admitted fact that the District Collector has granted administrative sanction for certain works in various villages of the Gram Panchayat and in that process only a meeting was conveyed by the Gram Panchayat to propose members for the Works Committee but the same was adjourned. It also appears from the counter affidavit that there is personal fret between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and to settle his personal scores with him, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Be that as it may, if the administrative sanction was accorded by the District Collector and the 5th respondent is not conducting the meeting to constitute the works committee, which will allot the works, the petitioner can as well approach the District Collector by making a representation putting forth his grievance. Therefore, giving the petitioner the liberty to approach the 1st respondent –District Collector, Ongole, putting forth his grievances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to look into the representation of the petitioner and take necessary action in the matter since due to the disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent, the villagers shall not suffer. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.23.6.2009 msv