IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29151 of 2010 Between: Smt. C.M.Venkata Ramanamma ..... Petitioner AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Aswartha Narayana Counsel for respondents 1-6: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.7: Smt. Ch. Vedavani Counsel for respondent No.8: Sri M. Jayaram Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29151 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.4 in according technical sanction for execution of work of formation of road from approach road to Mandemvaripalli under NREGS as per resolution dated 18.10.2010 passed by N.P. Kunta Gram Panchayath, as illegal and arbitrary. The facts of the case reveal a seesaw between the petitioner and respondent No.8 in the matter of execution of the abovementioned work. The petitioner claimed that by resolution dated 22.03.2010, the Gram Panchayath has decided to entrust the work to her, who is the Sarpanch. Later, on 27.03.2010, the Gram Panchayath has passed another resolution, wherein it has decided to entrust the work to respondent No.8. In view of the two purportedly conflicting resolutions, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition, which was disposed of by this Court with liberty to her to approach respondent No.1. Thereupon, the petitioner approached respondent No.1. In the meantime, on 13.10.2010, respondent No.3 has issued an urgent memo directing the petitioner to convene a Gram Panchayath meeting for passing a fresh resolution. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the said memo, a meeting was held on 18.10.2010 in which she claimed to have been entrusted with the work through a resolution. It is, however, the pleaded case of respondent No.8 that no such meeting was held on 18.10.2010 and that, on the other hand, on 08.11.2010, a meeting was held in which a resolution was passed by the majority members of the Gram Panchayath affirming resolution dated 27.03.2010 passed in favour of respondent No.8. While there is no consensus among the parties regarding these two resolutions, however, the learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that the issue as to the person, who is entitled to execute the work, is seized of by respondent No.1. In this complex situation, this Court feels it appropriate that respondent No.1 examines the case in its entirety with reference to the record of the Gram Panchayath and decide as to which of the above noted resolutions was legally passed and who among the petitioner and respondent No.8 is entitled to execute the work in question. Respondent No.1 shall take such a decision after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.37131 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.02.2011 ES