HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.12402 of 2011 Date: 26-12-2011 Between Alla Trinadha Rao … Petitioner and Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam district and 4 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.12402 of 2011 Order: Heard Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents 1 to 3; Sri G.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 2. After hearing the matter, in view of the consensus, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. The Gram Panchayat, Veduruparthi, passed Resolution No.6, dated 10-8-2010, proposing to construct new Panchayat building with the funds under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Consequent upon the resolution, the Executive Engineer (PR), PRI Division, Visakhapatnam, entrusted the construction work to the petitioner, who was a Ward Member, vide orders dated 28-01- 2011. The petitioner states that in pursuance of the said order he has started the work by digging pits after duly taking possession of the site in the month of February, 2011. It appears that there was no further progress in the work, therefore the Panchayat passed a fresh resolution on 03-3-2011 cancelling the allotment and entrusted the same to the Sarpanch, namely, S.Sanyasi Naidu. Accordingly, the District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam district, the 2nd respondent herein, accorded his approval in favour of the Sarpanch vide orders in Ref.No.127/2010/A5, dated 07-3-2011. This writ is filed challenging the said order. Incidentally, the petitioner has also challenged the resolution dated 03-3-2011. 4. The case of the petitioner is that once the work has been entrusted to him by duly passing a resolution, the same cannot be cancelled without notice to him. 5. The 5th respondent-Sarpanch filed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner’s nomination was cancelled as he failed to execute the work and that he is neither capable nor experienced. 6. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. 7. It is not in dispute that neither the petitioner nor the 5th respondent-Sarpanch has any legal right for being entrusted with the construction work. Though initially the Gram Panchayat entrusted the work to the petitioner, subsequently realizing that there was no progress in the work it has resolved to entrust the same to the Sarpanch. The said resolution, which has been passed taking into consideration a relevant fact, cannot by itself be considered as invalid. 8. Be that as it may, during the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this Court by both the learned counsel that the term of G r a m Panchayat expired in the month of August, 2011 and consequently both the petitioner, who was a Ward Member and the 5th respondent-Sarpanch as well, ceased to hold their respective offices. From a perusal of the affidavit of the petitioner and the counter-affidavit of the 5th respondent-Sarpanch, evidently the work has not progressed beyond digging the pits. In the light of this subsequent fact, namely, that both the petitioner and the 5th respondent-Sarpanch are not holding their respective offices, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration as to whether the work at all be entrusted to either of the parties. Both the learned counsel faced with this situation fairly submit that the matter be directed to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent-District Collector for taking an appropriate decision afresh in the matter. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam district, the 1st respondent herein, to re-examine the matter for allotment of work duly taking into consideration the fact that both parties have ceased to hold their respective offices and in the light of the State Government Circulars, if any, governing the field. Having regard to the urgency of the matter, the 1st respondent-District Collector shall take a decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo as on today shall be maintained. 10. In view of disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.15107 and 16061 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.2623 of 2011 are dismissed as unnecessary. No costs. ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th December, 2011. Note:- Issue C.C. in 3 (three) days. (B/o) Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.12402 of 2011 26th December, 2011. (Ak)