HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14891 of 2010 Date: March 15, 2011 Between: Ch. Laxama Reddy … Petitioner And 1. The Collector, Medak District & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14891 of 2010 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to the respondent authorities not taking action against respondent 4 who was allegedly digging a drainage canal over the drinking water pipeline in ward No.1 of Damarakunta village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District, without sanction from the Gram Panchayat. 2. This Court suo motu directed impleadment of the Gram Panchayat, Damarakunta village, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District, which consequently came on record as respondent 5. 3. In his counter, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Mulugu, the second respondent herein, stated that the 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat passed a unanimous resolution for construction of an open drainage canal under the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and accordingly he, being the Programme Officer under the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, obtained sanction from the Mandal Praja Parishad, Mulugu and allocated necessary funds for the proposed construction of the drainage canal. The said proposal was also approved by the District Collector, Medak, who released the necessary funds. The work was thereafter entrusted to the committee of the Gram Panchayat for execution under the supervision of the Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Mulugu Mandal. The second respondent further stated that the existing drinking water pipelines are not being used and were removed for the purpose of laying the drainage canal. He further stated that the 4th respondent, who was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, had acted in accordance with the procedure and the entire records and reports were submitted to the authority concerned in this regard. He stated that there was thus no occasion for taking any action against the 4th respondent. The petitioner’s representation dated 21.6.2010 was stated to have been suitably replied to under letter dated 01.7.2010 by his office. 4. In the light of the afore stated facts, it is clear that the petitioner’s complaint with regard to the laying of the drainage canal contaminating the drinking water source is unfounded and baseless. The writ petition seems to have been filed on mere apprehensions without knowledge of the full facts. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: March 15, 2011. BSB