THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No :1173 of 2008 DATED:25-01-2008 BETWEEN: Chintala Kotaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioner questions the action of the respondents in erecting an Over head tank and Water Filter Unit at the cost of Rs.30,00,000/- as estimated by the Government and sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.487 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RWS.II) Department, dated 30-10-2007, on the ground that the said tank and water filter are sought to be constructed at the site selected by the 2nd respondent- Executive Engineer between Anjaneyaswamy Statute and Boddu Rai locality on the ground that it is not a suitable site, and it will cause inconvenience but whereas the site pointed out by the Gram Panchayat to erect the overhead tank at Uravakatta is more suitable as the existing pipeline was already repaired and the site selected by the respondents is far away from the existing pipeline of Uravakatta. 4. Learned Government Pleader, on obtaining instructions, submits that the technical authorities have inspected the site and as per the technical feasibility the selected site is nearer to the water source such as open well and GLSR to draw raw water and the location is convenient to the public to take water. It is further stated that there is no deviation of plan and the said site selected by the department is more suitable but whereas the site at Uravakatta is not convenient to the public. It is stated that the so-called resolution of the Gram Panchayat, dated 06-11-2007, is not at all communicated to the respondents. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances it cannot be said that the site at Uravakatta is more preferable than the site selected by the authorities taking into consideration the technical feasibility, but however the said contentions cannot be appreciated in this Writ Petition without there being any material placed before this Court as to which site is more suitable. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 25th January, 2008. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy