IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14985 of 2005 Between: Takur Ramsingh S/o Narayana Singh Peddapally, Peddapally PRoper and Mandal Karimnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Principal Secretary to the Panchayath Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector (Panchayath Wing) Karimnagar District, Karimngar 3 The District Panchayath Officer, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Peddapally Division, Peddapally Karimnagar District 5 Devanandi Dharmaiah Sarpanch, Peddapally Village, Peddapally, Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K.VENU MADHAV Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for Respondent 5 : SRI. P.VENKAT REDDY for SRI S.NIRANJAN REDDY. The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents 1 to 4 in proceeding against respondent No.5 in terms of letter No.A1/14/2001-Pan as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to take necessary action against respondent No.5 for misappropriation of funds as established in the enquiry conducted on 20-01-2001. No counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint made by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted against respondent No.5 by respondent No.4 who found that respondent No.5 misappropriated the Grampanchayat funds, but despite the report submitted by respondent No.4, no action being taken against respondent No.5 by respondents 1 to 3. In the absence of the counter-affidavits filed by any of the respondents, the claim of the petitioner that respondent No.4 submitted an enquiry report against respondent No.5 deserves to be accepted. If such a report is submitted, it is incumbent upon respondents 1 to 3 to consider the said report and take necessary consequential steps. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the report said to have been submitted by respondent No.4 against respondent No.5 and initiate necessary action in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.19042 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 4th July, 2008 vrn