IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8972 of 2008 Between: 1 Meer Baquer Ali S/o.Late Meer Osman Ali R/o.Ranjole village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District 2 C.Sanga Reddy S/o.Sangareddy Resident of Ranjole Gram Panchayat, Rajole village Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District 3 R.Hanumanth Reddy S/o.late Malla Reddy Resident of Gram Panchayat Ranjole, , Rajole village Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Thasildar, Zaheerabad Mandal Medak District 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, at Sangareddy Medak District 3 A.Vidyanath S/o.Basappa Shiva Gram panchayat Ranjole , Ranjole village Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in recovering the Gram panchayat funds in persuance of Proc.No.1492/97/A2.Pts dated 2.9.2002 for Rs.2,04,594/- and Proc.No.1492/97/A2/Pts dated 23.12.03 for Rs.1,65,000/- of District Collector (PW), Sangareddy, medak District from the 3rd respondent as illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to recover the Gram panchayat funds with 18% interest from the 3rd respondent by issuing Land Revenue Recovery proceedings forth with in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GULAM RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, the petitioners have made a grievance to the effect that respondent No.3 has to pay certain amount to the Government, but the Government is not doing anything for recovery of the said amount. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, Tahsildar, Zaheerabad (respondent No.1) has filed an affidavit stating that needful has been done by the respondent-authorities for recovery of the amount, which is alleged to have been misappropriated by respondent No.3. Details with regard to the action taken by the respondents are given in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1. Learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 has disputed the amount, which is sought to be recovered from him. We need not go into the legality of the quantum, which is sought to be recovered, because it is for respondent No.3 to challenge the validity of the order whereby the amount is sought to be recovered, if he is aggrieved by the said action of the respondent authorities. Looking to the fact that action is being taken by respondent- authorities for recovery of the amount, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. _________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th December, 2008. GRR