THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.14000 of 2010 Date : 29-12-2010 Between: Nagiripadu Gram Panchayath, Represented by its Sarpanch D.Lakshmaiah .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by District Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Mangana Rama Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the decision of the respondents to construct building for housing Gram Panchayath office at Nagiripadu village instead of at Venkatarajupalli where the Gram Panchayath office is presently located as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to shift the Gram Panchayath office from Venkatarajupalli. I have heard Sri Mangana Sri Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. The petitioner is Nagiripadu Gram Panchayath, purportedly represented by its Sarpanch. The Gram Panchayath building has been located at Venkatrajupalli within the limits of Nagiripadu Gram Panchayath. On coming to know that a new building for Gram Panchayath office was sanctioned at Nagiripadu village, the petitioner-Gram Panchayath passed resolutions dated 10-4-2010 and 28-4-2010 opposing the said decision with a request to construct the building in Venkatarajuaplli village where the Gram Panchayath office is presently located. Feeling aggrieved by non-consideration of the said representations and the action of the respondents in seeking to go ahead with the construction of the building at Nagiripadu village, the present Writ Petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is inter alia stated that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was sanctioned under the Backward Region Grant Funds (BRGF) scheme launched during 2007-08, that Kadapa District is one of the 13 Districts selected for implementation of the said scheme, that as per the proposals received from the Mandal Parishath Development officer concerned, the District Planning Committee sent its recommendation to the Government which in turn has placed the same before the high power committee for onward submission to the Government of India for approval, that accordingly the work was administratively sanctioned on 19-10-2009 and the amount of Rs.5 lakhs was released on 9-1-2010. It is further stated that the M.L.A. of Koduru in his letter dated 10-5-2010 has stated that Nagiripadu Gram Panchayath is one of the major Panchayaths in 21 villages and that the place where the building is presently located i.e., Venkatarajupalli, is not the headquarters of the Gram Panchayath and thereby its location is causing inconvenience to all the people of the Panchayath, that after considering the said report, the Mandal Development Officer was directed by the District Collector, Kadapa to ensure that the building is constructed at the Gram Panchayath headquarters i.e., Nagiripadu village. It is also stated that Nagiripadu village is the headquarters of 14 hamlets in Chitvel Mandal which tends to the convenience of the people of all the hamlets. It is trite that location of an office building falls within the realm of administrative decision. Courts hardly have any say except in cases where the decision is vitiated by mala fides or patent arbitrariness or in cases of violation of statutory provisions. None of these grounds have been raised by the petitioner for invalidating the decision in question. The executive is the best judge to decide as to the location of public offices for which public convenience is of paramount importance. The petitioner has not denied the fact that Nagiripadu village is the headquarters of the Gram Panchayath comprising 14 hamlets. Even if resolutions were passed by the Gram Panchayath opposing the decision of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any statutory provision under which such resolutions are binding on the executive. In the absence of any plea relating to mala fides or action being arbitrary, much less any material supporting thereof, no case is made out for interference by this court. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.17613/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 29-12-2010 AM