IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12763 of 2008 Between: Gugulothu Sakru S/o. Bojya Grampanchayat, Mulkanoor (V), Garla (M), Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, (P.T. Wing) Khammam. 2 The Executive Engineer (Irrigation), Paloncha Division, at Paloncha, Khammam District. 3 The Superintending Engineer (Irrigation) Warangal. 4 The Tribal Labour Contract Cooperative Society, rep. by its President at Anjanapuram (V), H/o. Mulkanur, Garla (M), Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in taking appropriate action against the responsible persons preferably respondent No.4 for the misuse of public funds meant for eﬀecting repairs to the local irrigation tanks is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct them to take immediate action in the light of representation dt. 03.06.2008 submitted by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 12763 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is the Sarpanch of Grampanchayat of Mulkanur village, Garla Mandal, Khammam District. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking appropriate action against the respondent No.4 for the misuse of public funds meant for eﬀecting repairs to the local irrigation tanks is arbitrary and illegal. It is also the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that he made a representation on 03-06-2008 to the 3rd respondent-Superintending Engineer (Irrigation), Warangal bringing to his notice the lapses on the part of the 4th respondent-society in executing the work. A counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the 2nd respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner and stating that the work in question was allotted to the 4th respondent after inviting tenders following due process of law. However, it is stated that the representation made by the petitioner dated 03-06- 2008 was received by the 3rd respondent on 05-06-2008 and the same is under consideration. Having regard to the fact that the representation of the petitioner is pending before the 3rd respondent, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably with in a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving opportunity to the 4th respondent to make its representation and after hearing both the parties. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 13-10-2008 Not: Issue C.C. by Monday. B/o KLP