IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY 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 : 15789 of 2008 Between: 1 Kanagala Papa Rao, S/o. Durgaiah, R/o. Chodavaram, Nagayalanka, Kirshna District. 2 Rytepalli Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, R/o. Chodavaram, Nagayalanka, Kirshna District. 3 Ch.Naga Chiranjeeva Rao, S/o. Kutumba Rao, R/o. Chodavaram, Nagayalanka, Kirshna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, krishna, Machilipatnam. 3 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Machilipatnam. 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in not taking any action on the representation dated 15.10.2007 submitted by the Petitioners for recovery of the amount found by the Audit Party to have been misappropriated by the Ex-sarpanch and Secretary of Chodavaram, Nagayalanka, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary etc., and grant Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Allegations have been leveled against the Ex-Sarpanch and Secretary of Chodavaram, Nagayalanka Mandal of Krishna District. It has been alleged that the said persons have misappropriated funds of the Gram Panchayat. There is nothing on record to show that the said persons had misappropriated the funds. Moreover, the said persons have not been joined as respondents in this petitions though allegations have been leveled against them.. For the aforestated reason, we do not see any reason to entertain the petition. Needless to say that it will be open to the petitioners to file a fresh petition after joining the said persons as respondents and by adducing some evidence to show that in fact some funds had been misappropriate by them. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 23rd July, 2008. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR